
. f <tk-v . ir ' ' v v *an 


4 


i Q V E 7 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 


Chap. Copyright No. H3<r 

Shelf... —1310 0 


jJu-j 2, 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 















MANUAL 

» * ; 

«. ... •**’ 

OF 


Christian Theology 


BY 

ALVAH HOVEY, D.D., LL.D. 

n 7 7 

Professor of Apologetics and General Introductions 
[in the Newton Theological Institution 


SECOND EDITION 



SILVER, BURDETT AND COMPANY 

NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO 



& o p-w 2. 


58886 


ibt-fe.i y q! Corn/rw* 

{ ‘Vu (.oriu Httt^EO 

OCT 10 1900 

U Co»»n(tM •'try 
p<jP.^>Wo o. 

nA V^A.o 


U 


stc^No copv. 

to 

OHOM O' VISION, 

OCT 10 1900 


. #?,?• 
&0 


Copyright, 1900, by Alvah Hovey 




1 


ft 


PREFACE 


In this revised edition of his Manual of Christian 
Theology the writer seeks to express as clearly as pos- 
sible the views of Christian truth which fifty years of 
study have fixed in his mind. The work, however, is 
strictly a manual, not attempting to elaborate all the 
reasons for the views expressed, but leaving much to be 
supplied by the student or teacher. In the present state 
of theological inquiry a moderately full discussion of the 
subjects epitomized in this volume would have quad- 
rupled its size, and it has been the writer’s hardest task 
to bring into a narrow compass, by processes of omission 
and compression, what he had written in extenso for his 
own satisfaction. 

In all parts of the Manual abundant references are 
made to the Holy Scriptures; often in the old way of 
appealing to single texts or expressions, but never with- 
out due regard to the whole context in ascertaining their 
meaning. It is far better for students to examine 
every proof-text in its original setting, than to have it 
brought before them in a quotation: hence numerous 
references and few citations. It is hoped that every 
reader of the volume will go through it with Bible in 
hand, and multiply its value a hundred fold by “ search- 
ing the Scriptures daily whether these things are so ” 
(Acts 17:11). 


iii 


IV 


PREFACE 


This edition of the Manual differs from the former 
edition in that it makes Christian Service a distinct Part 
of the work, on a par with Mankind, the Person and 
Work of Christ, the Christian Life, and Issues Here- 
after; and it is hoped that this novelty of analysis will 
not be condemned without a generous attempt to ap- 
preciate the advantages which it offers in the study of 
theology as related to life. 

It may also be remarked that the study of Angels has 
been relegated to an Appendix following Part Second, 
on Mankind, and that an attempt has been made to 
employ ordinary instead of technical language in speak- 
ing of theological questions. The old doctrines are not 
overlooked or depreciated, but discussed under new 
names. 

The writer desires to make his grateful acknowledg- 
ments to the Rev. William Harston Goodall for help and 
encouragement in preparing this volume, to the Rev. 
John Russell Gow, for the careful Index of Subjects, 
costing much labor, and, above all, to one whose radiant 
courage, hopefulness, and devotion have been the light 
of his home and the joy of his heart for almost half a 
century. To her the reader is indebted for the Index of 
Bible References, and the writer, for counsel and sug- 
gestion in every part of the work. 

May the Great Teacher accept this humble attempt 
to honor his Name! 

Alvah Hovey. 


Newton Theological Institution, 
Newton Centre. 
September i, 1900. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

I. Definitions: i. Of Christian Theology, 3; 2. Of Christian 

Religion, 3; 3. Of the Christian Religion, 3. 

II. Relations of Christian Theology: 1. To Natural and Biblical 
Theology, 4; 2. To Apologetic, Polemic, and Comparative 
Theology, 4. 

III. Postulates of Christian Theology: 1. Normal action of the 
mind trustworthy, 4; 2. Value of Evidence estimated by 
this, 5 ; 3. Value of probable Evidence variable, 5 ; 4. Knowl- 
edge of God possible, 6. 

IV. Cautions to Students of Theology against: 1. Bold Infer- 
ences from the Infinite, 6; 2. Over-Confidence in Specula- 
tion, 7; 3. Pride of Opinion, 7; 4. Self-Interest, 7. 

V. Qualifications for this Study: 1. Mental, 8; 2. Moral, 8; 
3. Religious, 8; 4. Educational, 9. 

VI. Benefits of this Study: 1. Mental, 9; 2. Moral, 9; 3. Re- 
ligious, 10; 4. Practical, 10. 

VII. Divisions of this Study: 1. According to this Manual, 10; 
— Part I. God in Nature and in Scripture, 10; Part II. 
Mankind: their Nature, Character, and Condition, 10; Part 
III. Jesus Christ: His Person and His Work, 11; Part IV. 
Christian Life: its Beginning and its Growth, 11 ; Part V. 
Christian Service, especially among men, 11 ; Part VI. Issues 
Hereafter, 11. 2. According to other works whose point of 
view is either (1) Trinitarian, 11; (2) Christocentric, 11; 
(3) Governmental, 12; or (4) Redemptive, 12. 


VI 


CONTENTS 


THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 

PART FIRST. GOD 

CHAPTER I. GOD REVEALED IN NATURE 

1. Trustworthiness of Nature’s Teaching: i. Definition of Na- 

ture, 1 7; 2. Nature known but in part, 17; 3. This knowl- 
edge real and valuable, 17. 

II. Content of this Revelation: 1. Materialism indefensible : 
(1) If matter is lifeless, 18; (2) If it is a two-sided en- 
tity, 19; (3) Objections to the latter hypothesis, 19. 

2. Monism unsatisfactory: (1) Arguments for it criticised, 20; 

a. That it satisfies the logical appeal for unity, 20; b. That 
it dispenses with creation, 21 ; c. That it accounts for 
reciprocal action, 21 ; d. That it is sustained by biology, 22 ; 
e. And by certain texts of Scripture, 22. (2) Objections 

to Monism: a. Will force and physical force inconvertible, 
23; b. Monism endangers human freedom, 24; c. And rejects 
the testimony of consciousness, 24. 

3. Theism is rational and credible: (1) The Order of Nature 

favors it, 25 ; (2) The Marks of Design in Nature favor 
it, 26; (3) Objections answered, namely: a. That parts of 
living beings are useless, 27 ; b. That certain forces in na- 
ture are harmful, 28. 

4. The Genetic history of Nature Theistic: Stages and transi- 

tions of evolution, 28: (1) From uniform substance to dif- 
fering atoms, 29; (2) From atoms to vegetables, 29; (3) 
From vegetables to animals, 31. Objections to Theism 
from animal phenomena : a. Animals perish prematurely, 
32; but (a) Abbreviated life is better than no life, 32; 
and (b) A perfect habitat for different species may be 
impossible, 32. b. Carnivora abound, 32; but (a) More 
living beings are thus possible, 33; (b) Death of animals 
well-nigh painless, 33. c. Useless parts of animals, 33 ; but 
these may be due (a) to God’s love of symmetry, 33; 
(b) To his method of evolution, 33; or (c) To educational 
uses of the parts condemned, 33. (4) From animals to 

mankind — who are rational, moral, and religious beings, 
33. a. Mankind are Rational beings, 34; animals are not. 
Notice, e. g., (a) Size of the human brain, 34; (b) Human 
speech, 34; (c) The human hand, 34; (d) Constructive art 


CONTENTS 


Vll 


of Mankind, 34; (e) Man’s appreciation of the sublime and 
beautiful, 34; (f) His power of imagination, 35; (g) His 
ability to form general concepts, 35; (h) His introspection, 
35 5 (i) His aspiration and endless progress, 35. b. Man- 
kind are Moral beings, 36; hence not the offspring of 
animals, (a) Their consciousness of duty and of law, 36; 
(b) Of a law-giver, 36; and (c) Of accountability to him, 
36. c. Mankind are Religious beings: for (a) They put 
their dependence on a Higher Power, 37; (b) They rec- 
ognize accountability to that Power, 37; (c) They are 
inwardly moved to worship, 37; (d) They crave a personal 
object of worship, 38; (e) Only a perfect being can satisfy 
them forever, 38; (f) The perfection of God is therefore 
credible, 38. 

5. A priori arguments in favor of this conclusion: (1) The 
syllogism of Anselm criticised, 40; (2) The syllogism of 
Samuel Clarke criticised, 40; (3) The syllogism of Cousin 
criticised, 40; (4) Bearing of the a priori arguments on 
the question at issue, 40. 

III. The Revelation of God in Nature insufficient for mankind 
in their present moral condition: 1. Because God’s mercy 
to sinners is not clearly revealed in Nature, 41 ; 2. Neither 
is his treatment of them hereafter thus revealed, 41 ; 3. Nor 
what the Divine Being has done for them in the person of 
Christ, 41 ; 4. Nor what is the inner fulness of his life 
as the triune God, 41. 

CHAPTER II. GOD REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE 

As revelation in Scripture is supernatural, two objections are 
made to it: 1. It gives more light to some than to others, 
42. Answer: (1) So does Providence, 42; (2) Both Scrip- 
ture and Providence honor man’s responsibility for what he 
has — much or little, 42. 2. It affirms supernatural aid 

which is incredible, 44. Answer: (1) God’s action resembles 
that of the human spirit more than that of physical energy, 
44; (2) Supernatural action tends to restore, not to disturb, 
the order of nature, 44; (3) Such action is neither impos- 
sible, incredible, or even improbable, 45. 

First Proposition: The New Testament writings trust- 
worthy as historical records. The trustworthiness of 
historical records depends on their date and their writers: 
Notice then, 1. That Christianity appeared about a. d. 30, 


Vlll 


CONTENTS 


4 6; 2. That the New Testament Scriptures antedate a. d. 
ioo, 47; 3. And were written by Apostles or their Associates, 
47. Consider, especially, (1) Paul’s conversion and char- 
acter, 48; (2) His thirteen Epistles, especially the Undis- 
puted Four, 48; (3) The historical contents of the Four, 
48; (4) The Epistles of James, Jude, 1st of Peter, and 
1st of John, 49; (5) Trustworthiness of the Gospels, as spe- 
cially important, 49 ; a. Early Christian writers .make them 
antedate a. d. ioo, 50 ; b. All the early versions contain them, 
50; c. The fourth Gospel, though written by John in his 
old age, trustworthy, 51 ; d. Relation of the Gospels to one 
another: Critical views, 52; e. The Evangelists men of good 
judgment, 54; f. And manifestly upright — no motive for 
misrepresentation, 54. Conclusion, 55. 

Second Proposition : The New Testament writings prove 
Jesus Christ to have been an infallible Teacher. 
Meaning of the word “ infallible,” 55 ; Method of proof, 56. 
1. What Jesus claimed to know, 56; 2. His manner of teach- 
ing, 56; 3. Accord between the two, 57. Hence (1) His 
disciples believed his claim to be just, 58; (2) Readers of 
the Gospels have believed the same thing, 58; (3) His 
doctrines ratify his claim, 58; (4) His fulfilled predic- 
tions do the same : — the only apparent exception noted, 
58; (5) His claim confirmed by miracles, 59. Definition 
and purpose of miracles, 59. Objections to them answered, 
60. a. Human testimony for miracles said to be nullified : 
(a) By man’s predisposition to believe in them, 60; (b) By 
the observed uniformity of nature, 60; (c) By the perfec- 
tion of God’s works in nature, 60; (d) By the fact that 
God is nothing but a blind force, 60. Answers: a. Every 
normal bias of the mind is towards truth, 60; b. The order 
of nature is changed by man, 61 ; c. A finite world com- 
plete in itself no better than one improvable, 61 ; d. The 
last objection owes all its force to atheism, 61 ; e. A single 
miracle refutes all these objections, 62; f. The testimony 
for Christ’s miracles excellent, and his claim to infallibility 
ratified, 62. 

Third Proposition: The New Testament writings prove 
that Jesus Christ promised the Inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit to His Apostles, by whom, with some of 

THEIR ASSOCIATES, THE New TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN. 

I. Meaning of inspiration as here used, 63; 2. Texts con- 
taining this great promise, 63; 3. What they naturally sig- 


CONTENTS 


IX 


mfy: (i) That the Holy Spirit would be Christ’s Advocate 
with the Apostles, 64; (2) That he would bring to their 
remembrance Christ’s teaching, 64; (3) That he would 
lead them into the whole truth, 64; (4) And thus qualify 
them to teach his gospel without error, 64. In their com- 
pleteness these promises were fulfilled to the apostles only: 
a. They were addressed to them alone, 64; b. They assured 
them of specially needed help, 64; c. History forbids us to 
make the promises universal, 65; d. Yet some of them 
may be applied to all believers, 65; e. Paul was added to 
the primitive Apostles, 65 ; f. And so had with them a pleni- 
tude of gifts, 65 ; g. All Christians may have the benefit 
of them through the Scriptures, but the Apostles’ teach- 
ing will never be superseded, 66. 

Objections to the inerrancy of the Apostles as religious teach- 
ers: 1. They were not always true to their convictions: 
answer, 66 ; 2. They taught contradictory views of truth : 
answer, 67; 3. They misinterpreted the Old Testament: 
answer, 67; 4. They expected the visible return of Christ 
in their own day: answer, 67; 5. They admitted their for- 
getfulness and ignorance : answer, 67. 

But some New Testament writers were not Apostles. (1) John 
Mark, an associate of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, was one 
of these, 67 ; (2) Luke, the physician and companion of 
Paul, was another, 67; (3) James and Jude, brothers of 
Jesus, were others, 68; (4) The writer of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews belongs to the same class, 68. All these were 
probably associates of the Apostles and perhaps in- 
spired, 68. 

Fourth Proposition : Jesus Christ, together with the 
Apostles and their associates, indorsed the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures as from God. i. These Scriptures 
existed in the time of Christ, 69; 2. As is suggested by the 
Son of Sirach, 69; 3. And affirmed by Josephus contra 
Apionem, 69 ; yet 4. There was controversy about the canon- 
icity of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, 70. 
Notice then: (1) How Jesus used the Old Testament writ- 
ings, 70; (2) How they were used by Paul, 71; (3) How 
they differ from the New Testament, 71 ; (4) How this 
is justified by their character: They are distinguished a. For 
historic fairness, 72 ; b. For accuracy in local allusions, 73 ; 

c. For accuracy in their references to Oriental life, 73 ; 

d. For the fulfilment of some of their predictions, 73. 


X 


CONTENTS 


Why not of all? 73. (a) Many of them were conditional, 

73; (b) Many were figurative and obscure, 73; yet (c) 
Their authors claimed to speak God’s word, 74; (d) Their 
religious teaching was timely and progressive, 74; and (e) 
The spirit of essential Truth was in it. Our result thus far 
provisional, 75. 

Mode of Inspiration. Theories named and discriminated. 1. 
Theory of verbal plenary inspiration: said to be required, 

(1) By the object of inspiration, 77; (2) By the use of 
language not understood by the speaker or writer, 77; (3) 
By the language, “ Thus saith the Lord,” 77 ; (4) By the 
adjective, theopneustic, in 2 Tim. 2:16, 77. Objections to 
this theory scrutinized : a. It fails to account for varieties 
of style in the sacred scriptures, 77; b. It disagrees with 
the free play of feeling indicated by their style, 78; c. It 
belittles the work of inspired men, 78. 

2. Theory of dynamical “ plenary ” inspiration: which (1) de- 

fines inspiration as a direct influence of spirit on spirit, 
79; (2) Agrees with the purpose of revelation, 79; (3) Al- 
lows of appropriation from others by inspired writers, 79; 
(4) Agrees with a useful distinction between inspiration 
and revelation, 80; (5) Accounts every thing in Scripture 
equally inspired, 80. 

3. Theory of dynamical “religious” inspiration: which main- 

tains, (1) That the purpose of Scripture is to make known 
religious truth, 80; (2) That the passages affirming in- 
spiration limit it to religious truth. This theory modifies 
one’s view of the inerrancy of Scripture in all non-religious 
teaching, 81. 

4. Theory of universal Christian inspiration, 83. (1) The same 

Spirit is said to dwell and work in all renewed men, 83; 

(2) The prediction of Joel and the promise of Christ are 
applicable to all, 83; (3) Views of Dorner and Cave and 
author of this manual, 84. 

Objections to this view of the Bible stated and answered : 
1. That it tends to Bibliolatry, 86; 2. That it retards the 
progress of science, 86; 3. That it requires all copies, ver- 
sions, and interpretations to be inerrant as well, 87 ; 4. That 
Scripture is often obscure, 88 ; 5. That it uses unsound argu- 
ments, 91 ; 6. That it interprets falsely, 92 ; 7. That it teaches 
scientific errors, 94; 8. That it contains historical errors, 
97; 9. That it abounds in contradictions, 100; 10. That it 


CONTENTS 


XI 


makes false predictions, 102; 11. That it teaches bad moral- 
ity, 103; 12. That it teaches bad theology, 104. Hence the 
Bible is a trustworthy source of religious truth, that is, of 
truth concerning God and the way of life, 105. 

CHAPTER III. RESULTANT DOCTRINE OF GOD 

I. That God is a living and morally perfect Being. 1. As such 

he has perfect knowledge: (1) According to the testimony 
of Scripture, 107 ; (2) According to the demands of reason. 
2. As such he is perfectly righteous: (1) According to the 
language of Scripture, 108 ; (2) According to human reason, 
108. 3. As such he has perfect feeling or love: (1) Accord- 
ing to Scripture, 109; and (2) According to our moral 
judgment, 109. 4. As such he has perfect will or power: 

(1) According to Scripture, no; and (2) According to 
reason, no. 5. As such he is also triune, no; (1) Accord- 
ing to the New ’Testament, no; (2) And in order to fulness 
of life, in. Difficulties of this doctrine briefly considered, 
in. 

II. That God is an Infinite Being or Spirit. 1. As such he is 

independent in respect to (1) his existence, (2) his knowl- 
edge, (3) his action, (4) his happiness, 113. 2. As such 

he is immutable in respect to (1) his essence, (2) his knowl- 
edge, (3) his character, (4) his purpose, (5) his blessed- 
ness, 113. 3. As such he is eternal, perhaps, timeless; though 
the latter point is mooted, 114. 4. As such he is omnipresent, 

115. 

III. That God has an Eternal Purpose, 116. This is both 
scriptural and reasonable. Let us consider the end sought 
by the divine purpose. This is said to be (1) The glory of 
God himself, 117; (2) The well-being of mankind, 117; 
(3) Two ends which may be resolved into one, 118. Ob- 
jections criticised, viz., a. The presence of suffering in the 
world, 1 18; and b. The presence of sin, 118. 

IV. That God has created all things through the Word. 1. What 
is meant by the act of creation, 120; 2. Objections to crea- 
tion answered, 121 ; 3. The vastness of creation ; 4. Men not 
the only rational beings created, 121. 

V. That God upholds all things through the Word, 122. 1. This 

proposition opposed to deism, dualism, and pantheism, 122; 
2. God’s power a factor in everything that exists, 123 ; 3. 
Views of Harris (S.), Lotze (H.), Edwards (J.), 123; 


CONTENTS 


xii 


4. What divine upholding really signifies, 124.; 5. Answer 
to an objection, 124. 

VI. That God provides for the fulfillment of his Eternal pur- 
pose, 124. 1. God’s providence defined, 124; 2. It is uni- 

versal, 125 ; 3. It is rational, 126 ; 4. It is particular and 
instructive, 126; 5. It satisfies the Christian heart, 127. 


PART SECOND. MANKIND 

CHAPTER I. NATURE OF MANKIND 

I. Men are by nature bipartite: 1. This is the common rep- 

resentation of Scripture, 132; 2. And is supported by con- 
sciousness, 132; 3. Texts supposed to favor a tripartite 
nature examined, 133; 4. Use of the words ‘soul’ and 
‘spirit’ in Scripture, 134; 5. The two elements of man’s 
nature interdependent here, 135. 

II. Men are by nature racial, or homogeneous: as may be 
inferred, 1. From the language of Scripture, though Pro- 
fessor Winchell dissents, 136; 2. From their natural sim- 
ilarity the world over, 138; 3. Yet Genesis does not dis- 
prove an evolutionary origin of the body, 139. 

III. As racial men are reproductive: This is undeniable as to 

the body, but as to the soul three hypotheses are defended, 
namely, I. That of pre-creation, 139; 2. That of co-creation, 
140, and 3. That of pro-creation, 141. 4. Bearing of these 

hypotheses on the nature of death and after-life, 142. 

IV. Men are by nature social beings: 1. Evidence of this; 2. 
Importance of it, quotation from Saisset, 143. 

V. Men are by nature moral beings, i. e., subjects of moral law: 

1. Source and content of the moral law, 144; (1) Its 
source must be the moral nature of God, 145 ; (2) Its 
content must therefore be what his moral nature approves, 
in other words, likeness to himself; what He seeks men are 
bound to seek, the summum bonum for him is the summum 
bonum for them, 147; (3) This has been said to be either 
holiness or happiness, 148; (4) But neither of these com- 
prises in itself all good; Both are intrinsically desirable, 
148. (5) Objection to this view and further reasons for 

it, 148. 2. Human faculties which condition moral action: 
These are (1) knowing, (2) feeling, (3) desiring, and (4) 
willing, 149. 3. In what part of action its moral quality 


CONTENTS 


Xlll 


resides: Answer; In the soul’s choice of its ultimate end 
of action: in its deepest preference, 150. 4. Is this inward 
and ultimate choice of the soul free or constrained? (1) 
The teaching of the Scriptures is, a. That the actual sin- 
fulness of men is certain, 151 ; b. That the first sin was 
man’s free act, 151 ; c. That men are now morally weak, 
152; d. That their duty to repent is unquestionable, 153; e. 
That they need God’s help in doing this, 153. (2) The 

teaching of consciousness is, a. Conclusive for the fact of 
freedom (Hamilton, Lotze, Schurman), although, b. This 
has been often questioned (Alexander, A.), 154. (3) The 

teaching of logic, resting on the law of causation, is still 
doubtful: a. Reasoning of Jonathan Edwards, 155; b. Con- 
clusion of Lotze, Schurman, and others, 156. 5. Moral 

action necessarily free in all beings, good or bad: (1) This 
fact must be steadfastly affirmed, 157; although (2) It 
must be difficult to reverse a settled choice, 158; (3) Prop- 
ositions to be always maintained, 158. 

CHAPTER II. THEIR CHARACTER 

1. As a race Mankind are sinful. 1. Definitions of sin: (1) 

Want of conformity to the law of God, 160, criticism; (2) 
Inordinate desire, criticism, 161 ; (3) Deficiency of love to 
God, criticism, 161 ; (4) Preference of self to God, 162. 

2. All mankind are sinful, that is, inclined to wrong-doing: 

(1) Alleged direct testimony of Scripture, 163; (2) Bodily 
death a fruit of sin, 163; (3) Christ’s death for all, 163; 
(4) Man’s nature vitiated at birth, 163; (5) Language of 
Ovid, Seneca, and others, 163. 

3. All mankind not equally sinful: (1) As the Scriptures teach, 

164; (2) Yet in a sense “totally depraved,” 164; (3) Con- 
science with reason teaches the same : for, a. Man is ac- 
countable for every wrong voluntary act, 165 ; b. For any in- 
clination to sin which he freely appropriates, 165 ; c. For any 
increase of this inclination due to his sinful action, 165; 

d. For the evil which he may expect to follow his sin, 166; 

e. For lack of improvement in moral capacity due to his 
sins, 166; f. For deterioration of moral capacity due to his 
sinning, 167; g. For failing to do all the good he might 
have done if he had been always faithful. Hence all men 
cannot be equally guilty, 167. 

Is a man responsible for sin which he countenances in another? 
I. He is responsible for countenancing the sin, 168; 2. And 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


countenancing sin encourages sinners, 168; 3. Yet there is 
a difference between inwardly approving and resolvedly 
doing, 169; 4. A man is guilty for any wrong act in pro- 
portion to his sympathy with it, 169; 5. Sinners are an 
alliance of evil-doers, 170; 6. So, too, the good need not 
work alone, 170; 7. But benefit from fellowship with the 
good is counterbalanced by disadvantages from fellowship 
with the bad, 170; 8. As sympathy grows responsibility 
grows, 170. 

CHAPTER III. THEIR CONDITION 

I. As sinful mankind are condemned — Notice six hypotheses 

concerning their responsibility for sin, especially in connec- 
tion with their first parents : 1. The Pelagian hypothesis 
stated and criticised, 171 ; 2. The Arminian hypothesis 
stated and criticised, 172; 3. The Edwardean hypothesis 
stated and criticised, 173 ; 4. The Placean hypothesis stated 
and criticised, 173 ; 5. The Augustinian hypothesis stated 
and criticised, 173 ; 6. The Calvinistic hypothesis stated and 
criticised, 174. 

II. All men while unrenewed are exposed to punishment , with- 

out prospect of relief: 1. Purpose of punishment, 176; 2. 
Elements of punishment, 177; 3. Media and agents of pun- 
ishment, 178. 

Other views: — 1. That extinction of conscious being is the 
final punishment of unbelievers: a. Because endless loss and 
pain would be too great a retribution for temporal sin, 179; 
b. Because a permanently miserable being is of no use 
to God or man, 180; c. Because eternal life is the fruit of 
union with Christ, 180; d. Because death always means 
extinction of conscious being, 180; e. Because the Scriptures 
deny conscious existence to wicked men after death, 181 ; 
f. Because they use other terms for punishment which 
point to extinction of consciousness, 181. 2. That all the 
wicked will be restored through repentance, either here or 
hereafter: (1) Because the presence of endless sin and suf- 
fering in the universe is incredible, 182; (2) Because the 
utter extinction of evil is predicted by some of the sacred 
writers, especially by Paul, 183; (3) Reply to these argu- 
ments. Natural evil is not purely retributive, 183. 

Appendix. Biblical Doctrine of Angels 

I. Their essence or substance: (1) They are spiritual beings 
with no bodily organs. Texts a. b. c. d. make this probable 


CONTENTS 


XV 


against other texts (a), (b), (c), (d) which suggest 

material bodies, 186. 2. Their power in the universe is, 

(1) Great, as compared with that of men, 189; (2) Yet 
limited in every direction, 190. Their knowledge is, (1) 
Very great, measured by our standards, 190; (2) But 
strictly finite, and, in some respects, inferior to man’s, 190. 

II. Their character as moral beings. 1. Many of them are sin- 

less, 191 ; this appears from scripture passages (1), (2), 
(3)> (4)> 191 ; But how they have been established in 

righteousness we do not know, 192; Queries (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), 192. Many of them are sinful. This appears 

from texts (1), (2), (3). Queries suggested by Scripture, 

a. b. c. d. e., 193. 

III. Their employment. 1. That of good angels may be in- 
ferred, (1) From names given to them in Scripture, 195; 

(2) From actions ascribed to them in Scripture, 195; (3) 
Their guardianship of particular nations or men is doubt- 
ful, 195; (4) They appear to be an organized host (a), (b), 
(c), (d), 197; (5) They appear to be very numerous, 197; 
(6) They should not be worshipped by men, nor asked to 
mediate between them and God, 197. 

2. That of evil angels. This may be inferred, as in the case of 
good angels: (1) From their names, 198; (2) From their 
actions, 198; (3) Especially, from their taking possession of 
men, 198 : a. By getting control of their bodily organs, 198 ; 

b. By producing physical disease, 198 ; c. Their presence 
revealed by signs unknown to us, 199; d. Their usurped 
control sometimes began early, 199; e. Their removal called 
“a casting out,” 199; f. Some of the Jews practiced exor- 
cism, 199; g. Evil angels a kingdom, and Satan their head; 
Queries, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 200. 

PART THIRD. JESUS CHRIST: HIS PERSON 
AND WORK 

The world prepared for his coming in at least eight par- 
ticulars. 

CHAPTER I. PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST 

I. Person of Jesus Christ Divine. Conspectus of evidence, 
1. In the language of the Old Testament: (1) Historical — 
concerning the Angel of Jehovah, 206; a. Dr. Goodspeed’s 
analysis of this evidence, 206; b. The sign-presence of the 


XVI 


CONTENTS 


angel variable, 207 ; c. As “ sent ” not God in the absolute 
sense, but a revealer of God; d. Identified in the New 
Testament with the higher nature of Christ, 207. (2) 

Prophetic — concerning the Messiah to come. Objection 
to predictive messages answered : Typical prophecy as nat- 
ural as direct prophecy, a. Psalms ii., xlv., lxxii., cx., and 
Isa. ix., 5, 6, all either directly or typically Messianic, b. The 
same is also true of Micah 5 : 2-5 ; Mai. 3 : 1, and Dan. 
7:13, 14, 208. 

2. In the language of Jesus Christ himself: (1) In the syn- 

optical Gospels, a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. ; (2) In the fourth Gos- 
pel, a. b. c. d. e. as compared with (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) ; 
(3) In the book of Revelation, a. b. c. d. e., 212. 

3. In the words of New Testament-writers: (1) In the Syn- 

optical Gospels and James, Jude, and Peter, a. b. c., 216; 
(2) In the writings of Paul, with the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i., 217; (a) Meyer’s inter- 
pretation of Rom. 9:5. 218; (b) Better interpretation of 
Sanday and Headlam; (c) Notes on 1 Tim. 3:16; Eph. 
5:5; and Titus 2:13, 217. (3) In the writings of John. 

John’s object in writing his Gospel, 220; he teaches clearly 
the divine nature of Christ, a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h., 221 ; (a) 
Meyer’s interpretation of Jo. 1:1. 221 ; (b) Green on the 
omission of the article before 6 e 6 s, 222; (c) de Pressense’s 
view of John’s relation to Philo, 222; (d) Notes on Jo. 
20: 28, Leathes and Luthardt, 223; (e) On 1 Jo. 5 : 20, a. b. c. 
d. e., 224; (f) On Jo. 1: 18; not a proof passage, 225; (4) 
Use of Kipios by New Testament writers in speaking of 
Christ, 225. 

II. Person of Jesus Christ Human. Study limited to the New 
Testament: why? 226. The humanity of Jesus Christ is 
taught by texts: 1. Which denominate him man, 227; 2. 
Which call him the Son of man; 3. Which ascribe to him 
human properties and susceptibilities, 227; 4. Which speak 
of his flesh, etc. ; 5. Which describe his official work, a. b. 
c. d., 227. 

III. Jesus Christ Unipersonal, i. Controversy in the early 
church, 228; 2. Decision of the Trullan Council, 229; 3. 
This decision formally correct, 229; 4. Post- Reformation 
creeds assert the personal unity of Christ : Reasons for 
affirming this: (1) His conception and birth, 230; (2) 
His use of the personal pronouns ‘ I ’ and ‘ me-’ and * my,’ 
230; (3) His resurrection and ascension as one person, 230; 


CONTENTS 


XVII 


(4) His referring both sides of his nature to himself as 
one being, 230. 

IV. Each Constituent was affected by its Union with 
the Other, 231. I. This true of his divinity: i. Theory 
of Apollinaris stated and criticised, 231 ; 2. Theory of 
Nestorius stated and criticised, 232; 3. Theory of Cyril 
stated and criticised, 232; 4. Theory of Leo stated and 
criticised, 233; 5. Theory of Gess stated and criticised, 
233; (1) Statement of it = Kenoticism, 233; (2) Argu- 
ments for it criticised, a. b. c., 234; (3) General objection 
to Kenoticism, 234; 6. Theory of Thomasius stated, with 
objections, a. b. c., 237; 7. Theory of Dorner stated with 
favor, 238; 8. Author’s Theory explained (1), (2), (3), 
and supported, a. b. c., 238. 

II. This true of his humanity also: 1. Human nature of 
Jesus purified at conception, 241 ; 2. Per contra : see Edward 
Irving, a. b. c., 242; 3. Human nature of Jesus specially 
assisted by the Holy Spirit, 244; 4. It was also helped by 
his divine Nature, 244; 5. Bearing of this view on Mark 
13:38, etc., 244. 

V. Reasons for the Incarnation^ Some theologians hold that 

the incarnation would have taken place if men had never 
sinned. In proof of this appeal is made: 

1. To several texts of Scripture. Criticism, 245; 2. To the 
nature of the case. Criticism, 245; Per contra, (1), (2). 
Teaching of Dr. Samson, 246. 

CHAPTER II. WORK OF JESUS CHRIST 

The Offices of Christ; especially, The Self-Sacrifice of 
Christ. The term self-sacrifice preferred to “ atonement,” 
“ propitiation,” “ satisfaction,” or “ redemption,” 248. Defi- 
nitions of terms used, Moral good and Natural good, 
Moral evil and Natural evil, 249. Biblical grounds for 
the self-sacrifice of Christ, 252: 1. It is represented as 
necessary, 252 ; 2. As the fruit of God’s love to men, 
253; 3- As the fruit of his righteousness as well as of 
his grace, 254; 4. As propitiatory, 258; 5. As a ransom 
for sinners, 260; 6. As a basis for intercession, 262. a. 
Inferences (a), (b), (c), 262; and confirmations, a. h. c., 
262. 

Theories of the Atonement, or Self-sacrifice of Christ: 1. That 
its value consists in its moral influence only, 264; 2. That 


XV 111 


CONTENTS 


it consists in its being a substitute for penalty, 266 ; 3. 
That it consists in suffering the penalty of sin in place of 
the sinner, 267; 4. That it consists in a natural union of 
Christ with sinful men, 268. 

Conclusion, i. There are elements of truth in every one of these 
theories, 270; 2. No one is wholly satisfactory, 270; 3. God’s 
righteousness and love both equally satisfied by the self- 
sacrifice of Christ, 274; 4. But how can righteousness be 
illustrated by the suffering of the innocent in place of the 
guilty? 271 ; 5. Mankind are a family in which the good must 
sometimes suffer for the bad, 271 ; 6. This family includes a 
divine human being able and willing to suffer for his 
brothers, 272. Final Propositions, supposed to be at 
once Biblical and reasonable, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
12, 13, 14, 272, 275; Objections, reviewed. 

1. Christ’s work was finished before his crucifixion, 276; 2. 
The penalty of sin is chiefly spiritual, and Jesus could not 
suffer spiritual death = remorse, 276; Answers: (1), (2), 
(3), 277; Dr. Bruce’s statement, 278. 

The Self-Sacrifice of Christ Made for all Men. i. This 
statement is scriptural, though rejected by many Calvin- 
ists, 278 ; 2. It does not conflict with the doctrine of 
God’s eternal purpose, 278; 3. God removes every objective 
barrier to the salvation of unbelievers, 278 ; 4. The . self- 
sacrifice of Christ probably insures the salvation of those 
who die in infancy, 279. 


PART FOURTH. CHRISTIAN LIFE 

CHAPTER I. BEGINNING OF CHRISTIAN LIFE 

I. Relation of the Father to its beginning. This may be seen 
1. In the doctrine of Election: 1. Relation of purpose and 
election, 283 ; 2.-5. Illustrative instances of election, 283- 
284; 6. Fact of election to life clearly taught, 284; 7. God 
has good reasons in every case for election. One of these 
suggested by Paul, 285 ; 8. Another, in the Acts and the 
Epistle to the Galatians, 285 ; Another, by the true doctrine 
of prayer, 286; 10. Another, by the world’s progress through 
human agency, 286 ; The principle of Calvinism stated, 287 ; 
Objections to this doctrine answere'd, 278; In what sense 
is God no respecter of persons, 288. 


CONTENTS 


XIX 


2. In the doctrine of Providence : (i) Close connection between 
election and providence, 289; (2) Training of men in society 
and business, 289; (3) Individuals cared for by their 

heavenly Father, 289. 

II. Relation of Jesus Christ to the Beginning of Christian life. 

1. As Revealer of divine holiness and love, especially through 

his self-sacrifice: (1) Through a well-ordered creation, 
290; (2) Through the teaching of his prophets, 290; (3) 
Through his personal incarnation and self-sacrifice, 291 ; 
(4) Through the ministry of his apostles and the written 
Word, 291; (5) Knowledge of Christ’s self-sacrifice moves 
to repentance and trust, 292. 

In proof of this we appeal : a. To the contrast between the 
effect of preaching before and after the resurrection of 
Christ, 292; b. To Paul’s description of the gospel he 
preached, 292 ; c. To the Apostles’ account of the influence 
of Christ’s love on their hearts, 292; d. To the history of 
Christendom through the ages, 293. 

2. As Ruler of the divine kingdom: (1) Jesus Christ is now 

acting as mediatorial king, 293; (2) As such he imparts to 
believers their spiritual life through the Holy Spirit, 294; 
(3) As such he is their advocate or patron with the 
Father, 294; (4) As such he will be the final judge of all, 
294. 

III. Relation of the Holy Spirit to the Beginning of Christian 
Life. 

Preparatory study concerning the Holy Spirit. 1. Deity of the 
Holy Spirit: (1) Divine attributes and actions ascribed to 
him, 294; (2) He is associated with the Father and the Son 
in religious acts, 294; (3) He is called God, directly or im- 
plicitly, 294. 

2. Personality of the Holy Spirit: Triunity no more incredible 

than biunity, 295. (1) Christ teaches it, 295. (2) New 

Testament writers teach it, 296. 

Objections answered: (1) The Father said to be the efficient 

cause of miracles, etc., 297 ; (2) The Holy Spirit called the 

Spirit of God, 297; (3) The Holy Spirit related to God as 
man’s spirit to man. Caution from Augustine, 289; (4) 
The tripersonality of God not to be obscured. Statement 
of Dr. Pepper, 299. 


XX 


CONTENTS 


3. Identity of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God. (1) The 
latter appellation is sometimes interpreted by the former, 
300; (2) The same functions attributed to the one as to the 
other, 300. Passages a. b. c., 300. 

We come now to our special topic, the “ Holy Spirit’s relation to 
the beginning of Christian Life.” 

That he is, in a special sense, the Author of this life is inferred 
from biblical representations which speak of the origin 
of Christian life under the figure, 1. of generation or 
birth, 301 ; 2. of resurrection from the dead, 302 ; 3. of 
creation or new-creation, 303 ; 4. of divine calling or draw- 
ing, 303. Hence not in conflict with free will, 304. 

IV. Relation of Men to the Beginning of their Christian Life. 

The following conditions may be expected: 1. Knowledge of 
the gospel, 305 ; 2. Earnest attention to the same, 305 ; 3. 
Conviction of sin, 305 ; 4. Anxiety to be saved, 305 ; 5. Sense 
of need of help in order to be saved, 306: (1) Maclaren’s 
comment on Matt. 9:20 ff., 306; (2) We do not affirm 
that none of the heathen or ancient Israelites possessed 
spiritual life, 306; (3) Nothing done by an impenitent man 
establishes a just claim to the mercy of God, 307. 

First workings of the new life: 1. “Repentance,” which is an 
inward turning to God, 3075.2. “Faith,” which is genuine 
trust in Christ, 308 ; 3. “ Love,” which is a supreme pref- 
erence for God in Christ, 308 ; 4. “ Hope,” which expects 
future good, 309 ; 5. “ Spiritual insight,” which depends on 
right affection, 309. 

V. Relation of the Gospel to the Beginning of Christian Life. 

Two theories: that truth originates Christian life, and, that 
truth acts with the Spirit in originating it, 309. 1. The 

gospel is certainly a means of faith, love, hope, and insight, 
310; 2. But in bringing one to repentance it only comple- 
ments the work of the Holy Spirit, 310; 3. How then are 
the work of the Spirit, the influence of truth, and the 
action of the sinner related to each other? 311 : (1) The 
working of the Spirit and the influence of truth move the 
sinner to repent, 31 1; (2) But they appear to act in differ- 
ent ways — one subconsciously, the other under the eye of 
consciousness, 311; (3) The new birth includes the first 
movement of the new life, 31 1. 


CONTENTS 


XXI 


VI. Alleged relation of Baptism to the Beginning of Christian 
Life: i. The Creed of Romanists on this subject, 312; 

2. The Creed of Lutherans on this subject, 313; 3. The 
Doctrine of the Anglican Liturgy on this subject. Against 
the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration are these facts, 313: 

(1) That baptism was regularly preceded by faith, 313; 

(2) That some were filled with the Spirit before baptism, 
3i4; (3) That baptism was held to be “the answer of a 
good conscience,” 314; (4) That administering baptism was 
regarded by Paul as less important than preaching the 
gospel, 314; (5) That he claims to have begotten through 
the gospel many whom he did not baptize, 314. 

How the passages supposed to teach baptismal regeneration 
ought to be understood, a. b. c., 315. 

CHAPTER II.’ GROWTH OF CHRISTIAN LIFE 

I. Relation of the Father to the growth of Christian Life: 1. 

The Father justifies believers in Christ, 317; 2. He adopts 
them as his children, 318; 3. Signification of the word 
“justify,” 318; 4. Forgiveness and justification separable in 
thought but not in fact, 319; Remarks on justification (1) 
(2) (3) (4), 3 2 °; 5- Believers in Christ are justified on 
account of what Christ has done for them. This we learn : 
(1) From the direct testimony of Scripture, 320; (2) From 
the indirect testimony of Scripture, 321 ; 3. According also 
to the testimony of John; 4. And according to the testimony 
of Christians since the first age; 5. How this relation is 
mediated, 328. 

II. Relation of Jesus Christ to the Growth of Christian Life: 

1. Closeness and directness of this relation, 326; 2. Teachings 
of Paul in respect to the union of believers with Christ, 327; 

3. Similar teaching of John, 327; 4. Testimony of Christians 
in general, 327; 5. Influence of Christ’s words and acts on 
believers, 328. 

III. Relation of the Holy Spirit to the Growth of Christian Life: 
1. Spiritual insight is traced to the Holy Spirit as its 
source, 329; 2. Christian virtues are traced to the Holy 
Spirit as their source, 329; 3. Christian conduct and wor- 
ship are referred to the Holy Spirit as their source, 329; 

4. Christian conflict with evil propensities and victory are 
referred to the Holy Spirit as their source, 329; 5. Christian 
life depends upon union with Christ through his Spirit, 
330; 6. Sanctification is directly ascribed to the Spirit, 330; 


XXII 


CONTENTS 


7. The Holy Spirit’s help was necessary to good men before 
Christ as it is to good men now, 331. 

IV. Relation of Believers to the Growth of Christian Life in 
themselves and others: 1. True worship promotes this 
growth, 331; (1) The nature of prayer, a. b. c. d., 332; 
(2) Particular features of it, a. b. c. d. e., 332-333. 

Two objections to petition in prayer answered; (a) Founded on 
human ignorance: Answers a. b., 334; (b) Founded on 
the order of Nature: Answers a. b. c. d., 335-337; (3) 
Further evidence from Scripture that prayer is answered, 
337; (4) Rousseau’s misapprehension as to prayer, 337. 2. 
Study of God’s Word and Providence promotes this growth, 
338. 3. Doing his will is conducive to spiritual knowledge 
and growth, 339. 


PART FIFTH. CHRISTIAN SERVICE 

Conscious affection depends upon knowledge, and actual service 
upon opportunity, 342. 

CHAPTER I. IN FAMILY LIFE 

1. This is the primary sphere for Christian service, 343; 2. With 
children and servants it is a sphere for the most permanent 
usefulness, 343 ; By family worship Christian life is made 
pure and deep, 343. 

CHAPTER II. IN NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE 

1. This, in country places, is next in social importance to family 
religion; 2. Neighborhood meetings are often extremely use- 
ful; (1) By enkindling devotion to God; (2) By increasing 
brotherly love; (3) By securing the blessing of God, 344. 

CHAPTER III. IN CHURCH LIFE 

Note, on the double advantage of church life, 345. 

I. Christian Churches, i. Apostolic Church Polity instructive, 
346. 2. Definition of a Christian Church, 347. 3. Fraternal 
equality of its members, 348. 4. Their duty in receiving or 
excluding members, 348. 5. Qualifications for church mem- 
bership, 349. 6. All members responsible for discipline, 350. 
7. Churches select their own officers, 351. 8. They ought to 


CONTENTS 


xxiii 

respect each other’s action, 351. 9. Cooperation of churches, 
352. 10. Lay members to respect and support their officers, 

352. 11. Deacons to assist pastors, especially in caring for 
the sick and poor, 353. 12. Duties of pastors, spiritual 

leadership, etc., 354. 13. Work of evangelists, 359. 14. 
Apostles no longer necessary, 359. 

II. Christian Ordinances : Christian Baptism. i. Ex- 
ternal Rite , includes immersion: Notice (1) Meaning of 
ftcurTliriia from pairTlfa, 360; (2) Meaning of \ovrp 6 v from 
\ 6 i 5 w, 361; (3) The circumstances of baptism, 361; (4) 

Allusions to its import, 362; (5) Testimony of early Chris- 
tian writers, 363; (6) The practice of the Greek Church, 
363; ( 7 ) Concessions of learned Paedobaptists, 363; (8) 
The use of the prepositions, tv els , and tic, 364. 

Objections answered: (1) From Luke 13:38 compared with 
Mark 7:2, 4, 8, 365 ; (2) From Acts 2 : 41 and 4 : 4, 365 ; 
(3) From the use of Qai rrlfa instead of immergo in an 
early Latin version, 366; (4) From the small size of some 
early fonts, 366; (5) From the outpouring (= baptism) of 
the Spirit at Pentecost, 367; (6) Strictness in adhering to 
the form of a rite is unspiritual, 367; The formula to be 
used in baptism, 368. 

2. Significance of the Rite: (1) It symbolises the new birth of 

the subject, 369; (2) Through union with Christ in his 
death, burial, and resurrection, 369; (3) It represents the 
new birth as a purifying change, 370. 

3. Subjects of the Rite: Only those who give credible evidence 

of faith in Christ: (1) As shown by the great commission, 
372; Objections to this interpretation answered, 373; (2) 
As shown by the practice of apostles, 373; (3) As shown by 
apostolic language concerning it, 374; (4) As shown by 
the usage of the Church for two centuries or more, 374. 

Paedobaptists say, believers and their children: 1. Because 
baptism takes the place of circumcision. Answer, (1), (2), 
(3), (4)) 375-376; 2. Because entire households were bap- 
tized by the Apostles. Answer, 376; 3. Because Christ said 
concerning little children, “ Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven.” Answer, 377; 4. Because children are said to 
be holy by virtue of their parents’ faith. Answer, 377; 
5. Because the Jews would have complained if their little 
children had not been baptized. Answer, 377; 6. Because the 
early Church admitted the children of believers to baptism. 
Answer; Remarks (1), (2), (3), 378. 


XXIV 


CONTENTS 


4. Relation of the Rite to John’s baptism. (1) John and there- 
fore his baptism, belonged to the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion, 379; (2) He could not have baptized into the name 
of the trinity, 379; (3) His followers would not have 
needed baptism when they became Christians, 380. 

But on the other hand : a. The ritual act must have been 
the same in both cases, 380; b. The same spiritual prepara- 
tion was required in both cases, 380; c. Baptism was not 
commonly repeated when his followers became Christians, 
381 ; d. It was not surely in the case of the Apostles, 382 ; 
e. The New dispensation is represented as beginning with 
the work of John, 382. 

The Lord's Supper, i. The External Rite: (1) The elements 
were bread and wine, 383 ; (2) Their ritual use embraced 
three acts, a., b., c., 383. 

2. The import of the Rite: (1) It symbolizes the reception of 

Christ by faith, 384; (2) It commemorates the self-sacrifice 
of Christ in his death, 384; (3) It foreshadows the mar- 
riage supper of the Lamb. Remarks, a., b., c., d., e., f., g., 

385-387- 

3. The proper communicants: (1) Should any save credible be- 

lievers be invited to the supper? Answer, a., b., c., 387-388; 
(2) Should any save baptized believers be invited? a., b., 
388-389; Objections by Robert Hall and others answered, 
(a), (b), (c), (d), 389; (3) Should any save those whose 
church-walk is orderly be invited? Answer a. b., and under 
b. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), 390-393- 

III. Effect of Church Life. i. It cultivates a spirit of obe- 
dience to Christ, 395; 2. It maintains the practice of social 
worship, (1), (2), (3), 396; 3. It secures an increase of 
Christian knowledge, 395 ; 4. It promotes, by its discipline, 
watchfulness and consistency, 397 ; 5. It organizes and stim- 
ulates labor for the good of others, 397. 

CHAPTER IV. THE LORD’S DAY 

I. Duty of keeping the Lord’s Day. Beliefs entertained on this 
subject: 1. That men are under no obligation to keep it 
— for one of two reason. Criticism, 399 ; 2. That Christ 
substituted the Lord’s Day for the Sabbath. Criticism, 
399; 3. That the practice or authority of the Church re- 
quires Christians to keep the Lord’s Day. Criticism, 400; 

4. That the example of the Apostles is our authority for 


CONTENTS 


XXV 


keeping the Lord’s Day: supported by four facts, (i), (2), 
(3), (4), 400-401. 

II. Manner of keeping the Lord’s Day: 1. Employments em- 
braced in, or prerequisite to, religious service, 402; 2. Em- 
ployments necessary to the preservation of life and health, 
402; 3. Employments required for the prevention or relief 
of severe suffering, 402; Further considerations in support 
of this view, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), 403-405. 

CHAPTER V. PERIOD OF GROWTH AND SERVICE 

I. Perfection of Christian Service: Is this ever reached in the 

present life? 407; 1. Perfect service presupposes a perfect 
heart, 407 ; 2. No man’s self-consciousness can be a proof 
of perfect service, 407; 3. 1 John 3:9; 5:18 do not prove 
perfection of Christian life or service in any believer, 408; 
4. What the language may signify, 408; 5. No division of 
Christians into two classes tenable, 409. 

II. Abandonment of Christian Life and Service: Arguments in 
favor of the doctrine of “ Falling from Grace,” answered, 
410; 1. Analogy is said to favor this doctrine, 410; 2. Chris- 
tians are exhorted to persevere, 41 1 ; 3. Christians are warned 
against apostatizing, 41 1 ; 4. Cases of apostasy are supposed 
possible or actual, 412; 5. Instances of apostasy are related, 
412. The other side of the question, 413. 

PART SIXTH. ISSUES HEREAFTER 

CHAPTER I. ISSUES FOR BELIEVERS 

I. In Death. Its Relation to Christian Life: 1. Definition of 

physical death, 417; 2. Consciousness after death, 417; 3. 
Figurative references to it in Scripture, 417; 4. Quotation 
from Professor John Fiske, 418; 5. Relation of death to the 
moral condition of man, 419; 6. Quotation from Heard, 419. 

II. In Paradise. Its Relation to Christian Life: 1. After death 
believers are in paradise, 420; 2. After death believers are 
in Abraham’s bosom, 420; 3. After death believers are with 
Christ their Lord, 420. Further: (1) They are immortal 
like angels, 421 ; (2) Their perception of spiritual beings 
is doubtless more distinct than that of material things, 422; 
(3) Their relation to time and space is modified, but they 
are still finite beings, 422; (4) No intimation of sin in 
that state, 422. 


XXVI 


CONTENTS 


III. In the Resurrection. Its Relation to Christian Life: I. The 
Apostles testify that Jesus foretold his own resurrection, 
423 ; 2 They testify that he appeared to them many times 
after his resurrection, 424 ; 3. They predict the resurrection 
of all believers in Christ: (1) By recording the words of 
Christ, 426; (2) By testifying their own belief, 426. 4. They 
predict a resurrection of believers with real bodies, 426; 5. 
They represent the bodies of raised saints as being very 
different from their earthly bodies, 426; 6. They teach that 
they are adapted to spirit-life, 427; 7. Yet that they will be 
in some respects similar to their present bodies, 427. Three 
suppositions as to the time when Christ’s body was changed 
from natural to spiritual: (1) Before he left the tomb, 428; 
(2) Between his resurrection and ascension, 428; (3) At his 
ascension, 428; (4) Christians, like Christ, can have sensible 
relations with material things after their resurrection, 429. 
When are believers in Christ to be raised from the dead? 
8. Answer: at the last day, the end of this age, 429. Yet 
three distinct beliefs are held on this point: a. The resurrec- 
tion of believers takes place at the time of their death, 
429; (a) Answer to their interpretation of Luke 20:34-38, 
430; (b) Answer to their interpretation of John 11:25, 26, 
430; (c) Answer to their interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 
42-44, 430. Modification of this view by Dr. I. P. Warren, 
431. b. The resurrection of believers will take place just 
before the millennium, 432; (a) Answer to their inter- 
pretation of Rev. 20:4-6, 432; (b) Answer to their inter- 
pretation of other passages, 433 ; (c) Answer to their inter- 
pretation of still other representations, 434; (d) No clear 
proof that risen saints will live and reign with Christ on 
the earth, 435. Per contra: a. Jesus taught his disciples 
that it would be better for them to have the invisible Spirit 
as a Helper than his own visible presence, 435 ; b. Peter ap- 
pears to have taught the same thing by implication, 435; 

c. Compare also Paul’s teaching in several places, 436; 

d. Other Statements of New Testament writers referred to, 
437; e. Objections to the hypothesis that the soul has an 
organific power, answered, (a), ( b ), 437-438. 

IV. In the Last Judgment. Its Relation to Christian Life: 1. The 
Scriptures predict a last judgment, 439; 2. And this, a 
general judgment, 439; 3. Also, a righteous judgment, 440; 
4. Administered by Jesus Christ, 440. 


CONTENTS 


xxvii 


V. In the After Life of Believers: i. Quotation from Julius 
Muller, 440 ; 2. Body made a perfect organ of spirit, 441 ; 

3. Sight and hearing of wider range, 441 ; 4. Rational love 
in perfect service, 442. 

CHAPTER II. ISSUES FOR UNBELIEVERS 

I. Relation of Death to Unbelievers: 1. The same in itself to 

them as to believers, 443 ; 2. Sometimes met with a very 
different feeling, 443. 

II. Relation of Hades to Unbelievers: Parable of Dives and 

Lazarus. Hypothesis of conversion in Hades based on 1 Pet. 
3:19 unstable: 1. Aim of this Epistle to encourage Chris- 
tians in times of persecution, 444; 2. Aim of the paragraph 
quoted precisely this, 444 ; 3. Earlier in the Epistle the 
Spirit of Christ in the ancient prophets is spoken of, 445; 

4. Not improbably Peter speaks of Noah’s ungodly contem- 
poraries as “ the spirits [now] in prison,” 445 ; 5. Others rest 
on Matt. 12 : 32 as implying forgiveness and so conversion 
in Hades. Answer, 445; 6. In the nature of the case, 
forgiveness follows conversion, 446; 7. But there is no sub- 
stantial ground for believing in conversion after death, 447. 

III. Relation of the Resurrection to Unbelievers: 1. Only two, 
possibly three passages of the New Testament teach the 
resurrection of unbelievers, 447; 2. And these do not in- 
dicate the kind of bodies they will have, 447. 

IV. Relation of the Last Judgment to Unbelievers: 1. Many of 
Christ’s nominal friends will be found with unbelievers, 
448; 2. Some of the wicked will be doomed to less woe 
than others, 449; 3. The precise result of sin and woe in 
the final state are not revealed. Conscience will survive, 450. 



Manual of Christian Theology 





































*» 




















































* 






























4 * 














♦ 










MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


INTRODUCTION 1 

I. Definition of Christian Theology 

B Y Christian Theology is meant the science of the 
Christian religion , or the science which ascertains, 
jutsifies, and systematizes all attainable truth concern- 
ing God and his relation, through Jesus Christ, to the 
universe and especially to mankind. 

The word “science” is here used to signify knowledge 
correctly arranged or systematized, a knowledge of prin- 
ciples as well as of facts, of causes and effects as well 
as of events. Hence the science of the Christian religion 
must be a well-ordered and coherent exposition of the 
facts and principles of that religion. 

“ Religion,” in its primary sense, is reverence or piety 
towards God, and, at its best, a life of cordial service to 
him. It pervades the whole man, thought, feeling, and 
will, and in the Christian use of the term, signifies a life 
of filial service to God as he is revealed to us in Jesus 
Christ. Less exactly it has been defined “ a life from 
God, with God and in God .” 2 

literature: Smith (H. B.), “Introduction to Christian The- 
ology”; Weidner (R. F.), “An Introduction to Dogmatic The- 
ology”; Cave (Alfred), “Introduction to Theology and its 
Literature”; Crooks (G. R.), and Hurst (J. F.), “Theological 
Encyclopaedia and Methodology”; Schaff (P.), “Theological 
Propaedeutic”; and the Introductions of Strong (A. H.), Miley 
(J.) and other theologians to their works; also Kuyper (A.), 
“Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology” (1898, pp. 228-627). 

2 De Pressense. 


3 


4 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


In its secondary sense, religion signifies the means by 
which personal piety is originated and increased among 
men, and, so used, ‘ the Christian religion ’ embraces in 
itself all the facts, principles, and modes of action re- 
vealed by Jesus Christ, as conditioning a life of ac- 
ceptable service to God. 

II. Relations of Christian Theology 

1. Christian Theology is dependent on Nature and 
Revelation , or, in other words, on Natural and Biblical 
Theology, for the facts and principles which it correlates 
and interprets. It is also dependent, though in a less de- 
gree, upon the History of the Christian religion among 
men. And finally, in a still less degree, it is dependent 
on Logic and Metaphysics for the best use of its data. 

2. On the other hand, Christian Theology furnishes 
important data for Apologetic, Polemic, and Comparative 
Theology. For, in order to justify a religion effectively, 
one needs to know what it is and how it originated, as 
well as what it has done. In order to elucidate contro- 
verted points in Christian doctrine, one needs a good 
knowledge of the whole system. And lastly, one who 
undertakes to compare Christianity with other religions, 
— as Buddhism, Islamism, or Confucianism, — should 
have a comprehensive knowledge of Christian Theology, 
as well as of the religious systems with which it is com- 
pared. 


III. Postulates of Christian Theology 

Christian Theology must assume: 
i. That the normal action of the human mind is trust- 
worthy. A denial of this postulate is logically absurd, 
for all reasoning presupposes the trustworthiness of our 
rational powers, and all men appeal to reason as deserv- 
ing respect. Besides, it is self-evident that a denial of 


INTRODUCTION 


5 


the validity of mental action must be itself a mental act, 
and therefore worthless, if mental action is unworthy of 
confidence. 

Yet by assuming that the normal action of the human 
mind is trustworthy, we do not assume that it is infal- 
lible, any more than we assume that human eyesight is 
perfect when we say that “ seeing is knowing.” The 
mind’s grasp of a complex problem is often less perfect 
than its grasp of a simple problem; but the mind is itself 
aware of this difference, and the positiveness of its con- 
viction is proportioned to the clearness of its compre- 
hension. 

2. That the value of evidence is measured by its pozver 
to originate knowledge or belief. It can be measured in 
no other way. Of course, it may be submitted to many 
minds, and when all of them estimate it alike its value 
is more certain than it is in case of disagreement. 

Evidence may be divided into three kinds : 

( 1 ) That which is furnished by direct cognition, name- 
ly, axiomatic or necessary truths. 

(2) That which is furnished by clear perception or 
recollection; it being in either case indubitable. 

(3) That which is furnished by testimony or analogy; 
this kind of evidence being variable in force and often 
characterized as probable. 

It is also necessary to bear in mind two other facts : 

3. That probable evidence may have almost any degree 
of convincing power , from the highest to the lowest. In 
some cases it is perfectly conclusive, in others it is simply 
preponderant, in still others it is feeble or wholly un- 
satisfactory. 

Probable evidence is often cumulative, so called, be- 
cause it results from putting together a great many 
particulars no one of which is of much weight by itself, 
though the combination may be decisive. Many ques- 
tions of Biblical Criticism can only be answered by this 


6 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


kind of evidence. But this fact should occasion no sur- 
prise, for probability is the guide of life, and the soundest 
minds are those that best perceive the force of probable 
evidence. It is an accepted maxim, that judgment and 
conduct are bound to follow the stronger evidence, and 
the same principle requires us to credit even weak evi- 
dence when there is nothing against it. 

4. That men have some true knowledge of God. This 
knowledge is never full or perfect, but it is nevertheless 
real. They know him but in part as they know all other 
beings whom they know at all but in part. 

Agnostics deny this : 

(1) Because- our senses do not reveal God to us. 

This may be granted ; but our senses do not reveal to 

us our mental action, or the causal energy in nature, or 
mathematical axioms, though our knowledge of these is 
incontestable. 

(2) Because our mental powers are finite and there- 
fore cannot grasp what is infinite. 

It is true that our mental powers cannot comprehend 
the infinite, but it is equally true that they cannot com- 
prehend the magnitude of the sun or of the solar system ; 
and if we do not question their partial knowledge of the 
latter, there is no solid ground for disputing their partial 
knowledge of the former. We know in part. All our 
knowledge is fragmentary, but it is not therefore untrust- 
worthy, as far as it goes. Says President Schurman : 
“ Man, because he is rational, must believe in God as 
Universal First Cause; atheism is, in the strictest sense 
of the term, irrational.” 1 

IV. Cautions to Students of Christian Theology 

1. Against rashness of reasoning from the Infinite to 
the Finite. Ground for special caution in this case may 

1 Scientific Agnosticism, p. 27. 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


be found in the fact that one of the premises is imper- 
fectly known. Finite intelligence may not know how 
infinite intelligence will act in given circumstances. To 
infer, for example, from the perfection of God that all 
his works will be absolutely and unchangeably perfect 
is rash. To infer from the perfect love of God that there 
can be no sin or suffering in the world is equally rash. 
To infer from the sovereignty of God that man is not a 
free moral agent is also rash. For in each of these in- 
stances the inference is from cause to effect, while the 
cause is imperfectly known. 

2. Against giving too high a place to philosophical 
speculation. A man addicted to philosophical thought 
is in constant danger of trusting to his reason, and neg- 
lecting Revelation. He is tempted to leave the com- 
paratively solid ground of facts, verified by experience 
or supported by testimony, and to soar aloft on the 
wings of rational inference. There is need of guarding 
against a tendency to rely upon a priori deduction in- 
stead of historical evidence. Both are needful. 

3. Against yielding unconsciously to pride of opinion. 
Men do not willingly confess themselves to be in error 
on any subject which they claim to understand. Having 
avowed an opinion they feel themselves bound in honor 
to defend it. To give it up as erroneous is like sur- 
rendering a post in war. This pride of opinion, this dis- 
position to maintain the honor of one’s own intellect, is 
in many ways useful ; but it is often excessive, and needs 
to be curbed by a deep sense of the vastness of the realm 
of truth and by a strong desire to explore that realm as 
widely as possible. 

4. Against giving place to selfishness. A wider cau- 
tion than the preceding ; for a culprit is not apt to approve 
the law or the judge that condemns him, and, according 
to the Christian religion, all men are culprits. Hence 
they are predisposed to criticise severely the religion 


8 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


that condemns them. Men who are self-willed and dis- 
obedient to God sometimes blame him for their self-will 
and disobedience, and often declaim against the severity 
of his judgments. When we observe how difficult it is 
for workmen to see with the eyes of their employers, be- 
cause both are controlled by self-interest, we can under- 
stand why sinners oppose God’s government, and why 
we ourselves are liable to criticise unjustly the principles 
on which it is conducted. Against this we must be on 
our guard. 

V. Qualifications for the Study of Christian 
Theology 

1. Mental: soundness of judgment and power of sys- 
tematic thinking. Good sense rather than genius is 
needed in the study of theology. For the questions to 
be answered are numerous and difficult ; the evidence to 
be weighed is manifold and easily perverted, and a mis- 
take at one point is sure to bring in darkness or error at 
other points. 

2. Moral: fairness of mind and deep reverence for 
truth. Candor, though not indifference, is attainable. 
Prejudice can be laid aside, and docility cultivated. Au- 
gustine says : 

“ It will not grieve me to seek when I am in doubt, nor 
will it make me blush to learn when I am in error. 
Whoever reads these studies, where he is equally certain, 
let him go with me ; where he is equally in doubt, let him 
inquire with me; where he discovers his own error, let 
him return to me ; where he discovers mine, let him recall 
me. Thus let us walk in the way of love, tending to- 
wards Him of whom it is said, Seek ye his face always 
(Ps. 104, 4).” 1 

3. Religious: faith, love, humility. The importance 
1 “De Trinitate,” L. I, c. .2 ad finem and c. 3 ad initum. 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


of these fruits of the spirit is admitted by all true the- 
ologians. “ We must love divine things in order to 
know them.” Yet it is equally true that we must know 
them in order to love them. Some knowledge is pre- 
requisite to love; but love is prerequisite to the purest 
knowledge. God is love ; how then can he be known by 
one who does not know what love is ? God is holy ; how 
then can he be appreciated by one who is sinful? Yet 
even natural affection and conscience are sufficient to 
afford some clue to the goodness and holiness of God, 
though much more is needed by one who undertakes the 
study of Christian Theology. 

4. Educational: biblical, historical, scientific, and philo- 
sophical knowledge. All the sources of knowledge re- 
specting God and man should be consulted, as far as pos- 
sible, by the student of Christian Theology. But a 
mastery of the biblical sources is more useful than any 
thing else. 

VI. Benefits of Studying Christian Theology 

1. Mental. The mind was made for the apprehension 
of truth as evidently as the lungs were made for the 
reception of air. And the higher and purer the truth, 
the better will be its influence on the mind. Moreover, 
related truths belong to a system; they stand together 
and support one another. Hence a knowledge of their 
connection and interdependence is sought by the mind. 

2. Moral. The study of Christian Theology should 
purify and protect the conscience. For the truths of 
Christianity are sacred. And it is self-evident that, in 
order to teach them faithfully and effectively, without 
doing violence to reason or conscience, one must study 
them thoroughly, with the best helps in his reach. Then, 
and only then, can he be reasonably sure that he under- 
stands the message which he is anxious to deliver. Hu- 


10 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


man schools and teachers are not indispensable to this, 
but long and thorough study is; and this study can be 
most rapidly accomplished in good schools. 

3. Religions. Some of the doctrines which claim the 
attention of a theological student are fitted to test his 
faith. If he bears the testing a great blessing follows. 
“ Light is sown for the righteous.” Christian knowledge 
is favorable to deep piety. Ignorance is the mother of 
superstition, not of devotion. The study of Christian 
Theology ought to be prosecuted in such a spirit as to 
make it a constant means of grace. 

4. Practical. A minister’s success is equal to the bal- 
ance of good over evil in his influence, whether that in- 
fluence is direct or indirect, immediate or remote. Hence 
less influence, altogether good, may be more valuable 
than greater influence, counterbalanced by much evil. 
A physician whose medicines should cure a hundred men 
and kill fifty, would be less useful than a physician whose 
medicines should cure sixty men and injure none. So 
a little pure truth may be more useful than a great deal 
of truth mingled with error. And one who has closely 
examined the principles of Christian truth, and has dis- 
covered their mutual relations and interdependence, will 
be less likely to fall into contradiction and exaggeration in 
preaching them, than one who has never made this prepa- 
ration for his work. 


VII. Divisions of Christian Theology 

1. Method of Treatment in this Course: 
part first 

God, in Nature and in Scripture 
PART SECOND 

Mankind, their Nature, Character and Condition 


INTRODUCTION 


I I 


PART THIRD 

Jesus Christ, His Person and Work 
PART FOURTH 

Christian Life, its Beginning and Growth 

PART FIFTH 
Christian Service 

PART SIXTH; 

Issues Hereafter 

The scheme thus outlined has been commonly called 
synthetic. It takes the revealed facts and puts them to- 
gether in logical order, so that their relations to one 
another are readily perceived. It avoids, as far as pos- 
sible, any assumption as to the relative importance of 
Christian doctrines, yet on the whole, may be character- 
ized as theocentric, starting from God and returning to 
God. 


2. Other Methods of Treatment 

(1) One of these is based on the Trinity, and the prin- 
cipal divisions are, God the Father as Creator, God the 
Son as Redeemer, and God the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier. 
The baptismal formula and the early creeds may have 
suggested this analysis, and it is in many respects satis- 
factory, but it gives no sufficient place to anthropology. 
If the only aim of Christian Theology were to discover 
the nature of God, and what he has done in the past or 
will do in the future, this analysis of religious truth 
would leave nothing to be desired. 

(2) Another scheme is properly called Christo centric. 
It aims to bring all parts of Christian Theology under 
two heads, the Person and the Work of Christ. Thus 


12 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the person of Christ is said to reveal the true nature of 
God and of man, and, by contrast, the fallen state of man 
as he now lives; his work in providing for the renewal 
and forgiveness of man presupposes man’s sinfulness and 
need of divine help ; and both his teaching and resurrec- 
tion make known the essential features of life after death. 
Andrew Fuller proposed to follow this plan in expound- 
ing the doctrines of Christian Theology ; and Thomasius 
(G.) wrote an able work, entitled, “ Christi Person und 
Werk ” in accordance with it. But this scheme tends to 
subordinate unduly the work of the Father and of the 
Holy Spirit to that of Christ. 

(3) Another scheme makes the Kingdom of God the 
central and regulative thought; thus, I. God, the King; 
II. Man, the Subject; III. Christ, the Founder of the 
Kingdom; IV. Redemption, the Character of the King- 
dom; V. The Way of Salvation, the Law of the King- 
dom; VI. The Church, its Training School; VII. The 
Completion of the Kingdom. 1 The most obvious ob- 
jection to this scheme is the prominence which it gives 
to the governmental relation of God to men. God is 
certainly represented by Jesus Christ as a King, but he 
is represented no less distinctly as a Father. Christians 
are his servants, but no less truly his children. 

(4) Another scheme makes Reconciliation to God 
through Christ the regulative thought. Thus Hase, in 
his “ Hutterus Redivivus,” speaks I. Of the Sources of 
Christian Theology, viz., the Bible (and Nature) ; II. 
Of its Object, viz., God; III. Of its Subject, viz., Man; 
IV. Of its Means, viz., Christ and his Work; V. Of the 
Result, viz., Reconciliation. Not very different from 
this is the scheme of Dr. Chalmers whose fundamental 
idea is, that Christianity is a Remedial Dispensation. 
Theology is an exposition of the disease and its remedy, 

1 See Van Osterzee’s “ Christian Dogmatics ” from which this 
analysis is copied, and Augustine’s “ De Civitate Dei.” 


INTRODUCTION 


*3 


or of sin and its cure. He begins therefore with a study 
of the disease, and then proceeds to investigate the rem- 
edy. 


THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 
Baptist 

Gill (John), “A Complete Body of Doctrinal and 
Practical Divinity.” (High Calvinism.) Strong (A. 
H. ) , “ Systematic Theology. A Compendium and Com- 
monplace Book.” 1886. (Well analyzed and compre- 
hensive.) Boyce (J. P.), “Abstract of Systematic 
Theology.” 1887, Revised Edition, 1899. (Calvinistic, 
vigorous, thorough.) Johnson (E. H.), “Outline of 
Systematic Theology.” 1891. (Clear, independent, ex- 
cellent.) Robinson (E. G.), “Christian Theology.” 
1894. Edited by Prof. B. D. True of Rochester, N. Y. 
(Masculine.) Clarke (W. N.), “Outline of Christian 
Theology.” 1894. (Exceedingly readable and stimu- 
lating.) Dagg (J. L.), “ Manual of Theology and of 
Church Polity.” 


Presbyterian 

Calvin (John), “ Institutes of the Christian Religion.” 
2 vols. Trs. by Henry Beveridge. (A standard work.) 
Turretini (F.), “ Institutio Theologise Elencticse.” 4 
vols. New Edition, Edinburgh, 1847-48. (Out of 
print.) Hodge (C.), “ Systematic Theology.” 3 vols. 
1871. (Logical, historical, controversial.) Smith (H. 
B.), “System of Christian Theology.” 1884. (Clear, 
scholarly,' mediating.) Shedd (W. G. T.), “Dog- 
matic Theology.” 3 vols. 1888. (Sturdy, thorough, 
realistic.) Gerhart (E. V.), “ Institutes of the Christian 
Religion.” 2 vols. 1891, 1894. (Dutch Reformed.) 


i4 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


CONGREGATIONALIST 

Wardlaw (R), “ Systematic Theology.” 1856. (Mod- 
erately Calvinistic.) Wood (Leonard), “Theological 
Lectures.” 5 vols. 1849,1850. (Sober, cautious, solid.) 
Bellamy (J.), “True Religion Delineated,”; “The Wis- 
dom of God in the Permission of Evil.” Emmons 
(N.), “Works,” with a Memoir by Dr. Edwards A. 
Park. 6 vols. 1860-61. (Clear, strenuous, original: 
All virtue is in action : “ The Exercise Scheme,” as op- 
posed to Dr. Asa Burton’s “ Taste Scheme.”) 

Lutheran 

Dorner (A.), “System of Christian Doctrine.” Eng. 
Trans. 4 vols. 1880-82. (Learned, profound, ex- 
haustive.) Philippi (F. A.), “ Kirchliche Glaubens- 
lehre.” 1854-1882. 6 vols. (Admirable analysis and 

discussion.) Kahnis (K. F. A.), “Die lutherische 
Dogmatik historisch-genetisch dargestellt.” 2nd Ed. 2 
vols. 1874-75. Thomasius (G.), “ Christi Person und 
Werk.” 4 vols. (Christocentric, kenotic.) 


PART FIRST 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


5 


PART FIRST 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 

The word God is here used to signify a Supreme Being 
or Personality. Without belief in such a Being, true 
religion is impossible. There may be in the hearts of men 
a fear of blind force, but a life of cordial service can be 
given to nothing less than a personal and holy being, who 
is at the same time supreme. 

But are there rational grounds for belief in the existence 
of such a being? We are confident that there are, and 
that they may be found in Nature and in Scripture. It is 
therefore expedient to begin our course of Study in 
Christian theology with a patient scrutiny of Nature and 
of the Holy Scriptures in search of the evidence which 
they furnish of the being of God. 


16 


CHAPTER I 


GOD REVEALED IN NATURE 
I. Trustworthiness of Nature's Teaching 

1. No one will be likely to deny this, if he rightly inter- 
prets the word nature. For this term is used to connote 
the whole universe of matter and of mind, with the excep- 
tion of God. All the worlds and all the living beings that 
people them, including the human race, are denoted by 
this single term. Nature is therefore the source of all 
scientific knowledge, and idealists, as well as naturalists, 
appeal to it with confidence in support of their views. 
What it teaches they consider themselves bound to be- 
lieve. 

2. But Nature is vast and mysterious. No man com- 
prehends it perfectly. Moreover, as Sir James W. Daw- 
son affirms, “ it is in a state of constant movement and 
progress . . . always becoming something different from 
what it was, and man is placed in the midst of this orderly, 
law-regulated yet. ever-progressive system, and is him- 
self a part of it.” 

3. Since all parts of Nature are interdependent, it may 
seem necessary to examine the whole of it in order to ob- 
tain a correct view of its testimony concerning theism. 
But to do this is beyond our power. We must therefore 
be satisfied with knowing it in part. And if we maintain 
that this partial revelation is trustworthy, we do not mean 
to say that a mere fragment of nature is always intelligible 
when studied by itself alone. Neither the poison of asps 
nor a ‘ flower in the crannied wall,’ is equal to the universe 


7 


1 8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

as a source of instruction concerning God. But there 
may be principles and forces pervading Nature which 
are partially revealed in a thousand beings and things. 
Above all, man, a personal and moral being, is embraced 
in the complex order and system of Nature, and in the 
light of what man is, the truth of theism will appear to be 
profoundly reasonable and therefore credible. 

II. Content of this Revelation 

There are three hypotheses about Nature which merit 
examination; viz., the Materialistic , the Idealistic , and the 
Theistic; but the third is more reasonable than either the 
first or the second. This we shall attempt to show by a 
concise review of them. 

We assume the existence of what we call nature or the 
universe, and infer that something must have been in 
existence always. Either the universe itself or an ade- 
quate cause of the universe must have been self-existent 
and eternal. It is impossible for the mind to believe that 
real being has come from nothing. We can conceive of 
eternal, that is, self-existent being, and we can conceive of 
one being as derived from another, but the emergence of 
something from nothing is altogether inconceivable. The 
laws of thought compel us to say, something is, and by 
that token we know that something has always been. 

The materialistic hypothesis need not detain us long . 1 
It has had able defenders, but its influence is waning, 
i. It asserts that “ matter, or material force is eternal, 
and has originated all mind or mental force.” 

1 See Lange (F. A.), “History of Materialism”; translated 
from the German by Mr. Thomas, 3 vols. ; Buchner (F. K. C. L.), 
“Matter and Force” and “Man’s Place in Nature”; Hceckel 
(E. H.), “Natural History of Creation” and “ Anthropogeny ” ; 
Flint (R.), “ Antitheistic Theories” (Sections II and IV, and 
Notes V and XIX on the same) ; Fiske (J.), “Through Nature 
to God” (clear and strong). 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 19 

But against this hypothesis it may be confidently af- 
firmed that the reality of matter is less certain than the 
reality of mind ; that it is more rational to consider matter 
an ideal or real product of mind than to consider thought 
or mind a secretion from matter, i. e., from the brain ; and 
that it is impossible to conceive of either of these as pass- 
ing into the other by a change of nature. A tremor of the 
brain cannot be changed into a thought. 

2. To meet this difficulty it has been argued that the 
one eternal Reality is two-sided ; on the one, mental, and 
on the other, physical. This is supposed to be true of the 
simplest elements of nature, the ultimate atoms which 
have, either consciously or unconsciously, slowly built the 
worlds, with all that is in them. 

3. Objections. But against this hypothesis we remark : 

( 1 ) That it is a virtual surrender of materialism ; for it 

gives as high a place to mind as to matter in the structure 
of the universe. (2) That there is no evidence of life in 
the ultimate particles of matter, and no evidence of intel- 
ligence in anything lifeless. (3) That to assign to each 
particular atom infinitesimal intelligence does not ac- 
count for the order of the universe. (4) That to imagine 
every atom possessed of a far-seeing and cooperating in- 
telligence is to set at nought experience and build one’s 
castle in the air. Sir Wm. Thomson estimates that from 
six to sixty billions of chemical atoms are required to fill 
a cubic inch of space. Yet these atoms are exceedingly 
heavy. By a series of experiments upon the absorption of 
X and cathode rays, Signor Guglielmo has reached the 
conclusion that “ the density of atoms is . . . 80,000,000 
times that of water, or that atoms weigh about 28,000,000 
pounds per cubic inch!” ( Current Literature , Discov- 
eries, Oct. 1899.) 

Professor Royce thus felicitously describes the theory 
rejected by himself of a basal atomic intelligence : “ An 


20 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


atom in motion may be a thought, or, if that be saying far 
too much of so simple a thing, an atom in motion may be 
endowed with an infinitesimal consciousness. Billions 
of atoms in interaction may have as their resultant quite 
a respectable little consciousness. Sufficiently complex 
groups of Mind-Stuff . . . might produce a great man .” 1 
How the consciousness of each of these atoms is to be 
blended in one with billions of other consciousnesses, is 
not explained, nor can we imagine. Besides, the proper 
notion of materialism disappears when chemical atoms 
are assumed to be conscious, that is, intelligent, to be 
thoughts. 

2. Idealistic Monism has better support in reason, but 
is nevertheless unsatisfactory . 2 This hypothesis denies 
the reality of matter. Of all natural and temporal 
existences it holds “ that presence to consciousness con- 
stitutes their entire reality and entire existence.” 3 

(i) Arguments in favor criticised. In commendation 
of this hypothesis the following may be said : — 

a. It appears to satisfy the tendency of human reason 
to resolve all things into one. Thought reaches its goal, 
as well as its limit, when it finds that all are one in es- 

1 “ The Religious Aspect of Philosophy,” p. 254. 

2 S churman (J. G.), “Belief in God”; Hill (D. J.), “Genetic 
Philosophy”; Bowne (B. P.), “Metaphysics”; Lotze (H.), 
“ Microcosmus ,” transl. vol. II, b. ix., Royce (J.), “The Reli- 
gious Aspect of Philosophy ” ; “ The Conception of God ” ; 
“Studies of Good and Evil,” I, IV- VIII ; Upton, “The Bases 
of Religious Faith,”*pp. 278-364; Le Conte (G.), “Contributions 
to the Theory of Natural Selection ” ; Plumptre (C. E.), “Gen- 
eral Sketch of the History of Pantheism”; Romanes (G. J.), 
“Mind and Motion and Monism”; Driesenberg (U.), “ The- 
ismus und Pantheismus ” ; Hovey (A.), “Studies in Ethics and 
Religion”; Strong (A. H.), “Ethical Monism”; Haeckel (E.), 
“ Monism as Connecting Religion and Science. The Confession 
of Faith of a Man of Science,” 1894. 

? Prof. Howison in Royce, “ Conception of God,” p. 84. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


21 


sence. Synthesis has nothing more to do. The logical 
faculty rests forever in absolute oneness. 

But this argument is far from conclusive. For neither 
absolute simplicity nor discordant variety is the goal of 
rational thought. Unity in diversity is rather that goal, 
especially if the word ‘ soul ’ be substituted for the word 
‘ thought,’ if feeling, imagination, desire and will are as- 
sociated with logical reasoning as functions of personal 
life. 

b. This hypothesis dismisses the miracle of creation 
as needless and incomprehensible. Since reason seeks to 
comprehend all things, it welcomes with satisfaction a 
view which accounts for the world without any act of 
creation. This is probably the most effective argument 
for pantheism as well as for idealism. Its defenders as- 
sert that any addition to the sum of being is inconceivable, 
since such an addition would involve a production of 
something out of nothing. 

But there is reason to question the soundness of this 
argument. If it is valid within the domain of material 
things, there is apparent ground for denying its applic- 
ability to the procreation of life and spirit, and, still more, 
its applicability to the action of an original, self-existent 
spirit. Consider the multiplication of animal life in ten 
thousand lives through uncounted generations. Consider 
the procreation of human souls in the human race, i. e., if 
children are the offspring of their parents, according to 
the traducian theory. For the souls of children are per- 
sonally distinct from the souls of their parents. Do we 
know that a spiritual power is lessened by any output of 
energy or force? And if it should appear that this is 
true of a finite spirit, must it be true also of an infinite 
spirit? Heus, caute in istis agas! 

c. This hypothesis renders the reciprocal action be- 
tween distinct beings or things intelligible. Lotze af- 
firms, and Schurman follows him, that “ all which exists 


22 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


is but One Infinite Being which stamps upon individual 
things in fitting forms its own ever-similar and self- 
identical nature. Only on the assumption of this sub- 
stantial unity is that intelligible which we call the recip- 
rocal action of different things, and which in truth is 
always the reciprocal action of the states of one and the 
same thing.” 1 

But we are unable to see anything absurd or incredible 
in the assumption that things differing from each other 
in some degree as to the substance of their being may 
have enough in common to make action and reaction 
possible. Why must the underlying essence of things be 
identical, any more than the states of that essence, in 
order to reciprocal action ? 

d. This hypothesis is favored by biological science. 
Biology is thought to furnish the best analogies for the 
explanation of the universe. For there is energy in a 
living being, and at the same time a relation of part to part 
throughout. Interaction between all the parts is also 
constant. The invisible force and the visible manifesta- 
tion are inseparably united ; so it must be with God and 
the universe. He is the soul, it is the organism in which 
he acts. 

This argument for spiritual monism is scarcely tenable. 
The universe, including God, may indeed be compared 
with a great animal; but, as far as we can judge, the 
points of similarity are less numerous and less important 
than the points of difference. Why appeal to the one, 
and overlook the other? 

e. This hypothesis is favored by certain passages of 
Scripture. “ In him we live and move and are,” Acts 
17:28; “That God may be all in all,” 1. Cor. 15:28. 
“ Who is over all, and through all, and in all,” Eph. 4 : 6. 

But a careful scrutiny of the connection in which these 
expressions stand leads to a different view of their mean- 
1 Microcosm,” vol. II, 1 . ix, pp. 660-1. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 23 

in g. Any one who believes that God is the omnipresent 
Maker and Upholder of the Universe finds it easy to 
explain such language. A literal interpretation of the 
first passage proves no more than this, that God’s relation 
to us is as intimate as that of the atmosphere, for in the 
latter we live and move and are. If we give to the words 
any profounder meaning, it must be because of what we 
know of the Divine nature from other sources. The 
second passage obviously implies that God is not now 
what he purposes to be in relation to mankind or the 
universe. But it is unreasonable to suppose that Paul 
was thinking of essential monism or oneness of being. 
He was thinking of moral relations, of the place which 
God would fill in the hearts of mankind, or at least in 
their reverence. From the last passage we can only 
learn that God is the omnipresent and supreme Ruler. 
Some have found in a doubtful reading of John i : 3, 4, 
evidence that all things are life in the higher nature of 
Christ; but the interpretation, as well as the reading, is 
improbable. 

Thus the arguments by which monism is recommended 
are inconclusive. 

(2) Objections to Monism. And while this is so, 
there are considerations, deserving notice, which bear 
against it. 

a. Energy of spirit is not convertible into physical 
energy. If it seems in any degree probable that the 
seventy or more ultimate forms of matter can be reduced 
to one, and that that one is nothing but elementary force, 
simple, continuous, undifferentiated, it does not seem 
probable that such a force is conscious and voluntary, 
that it is will-force. For an impossible gulf separates 
matter from mind, volition from gravitation. Gravita- 
tion has no initiative, no power of choice, while volition 
is nothing, unless it be initiative. We do not deny a 


24 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


possible connection between the two, matter and mind, 
but it is an absolutely incomprehensible connection. The 
conscious will, if changed into physical force, would be 
no longer itself ; but there is no evidence in physical 
science, or mental, that such a change is possible. 

Says Professor Fiske : “ Thought and feeling which can 
neither be weighed nor measured, do not admit of being 
resolved into modes of action. They do not enter into the 
closed circuit of physical transformations, but stand forever 
outside of it, and concentric with that segment of the circuit 
which passes through the brain. It may be that thought and 
feeling could not continue to exist if that physical segment 
of the circle were taken away. It may be that they could. 
To assume that they could not is surely the height of rash 
presumption. The correlation of forces exhibits mind as in 
no wise a product of matter, but as something in its growth 
and manifestations outside and parallel.” 1 

b. Monism appears to be incompatible with human 
causality or freedom. For it resolves all power into 
God’s power and all action into God’s action. He is 
immanent in nature, and every part of nature is immanent 
in him. All forms of natural energy are his actions. 
How then can man be responsible for his own volitions? 
Consciousness affirms that he is, but a monistic view of 
God denies this truth on the ground that God is all in all. 
Man may seem to act, but it is God who really acts 
through man’s action. 

c. Monism refutes itself by rejecting the testimony 
of consciousness. For while it rests on the testimony of 
consciousness in proving will to be the only known source 
of action, it rejects the testimony of consciousness by 
ascribing its voluntary energy to God. If human con- 
sciousness does not prove that human will has real energy, 
it surely does not prove that any other will has such 
energy. For in acting it is directly cognizant of itself 


1 “ Through Nature to God,” p. 155. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 25 

alone as the actor. It does not even know that its voli- 
tions are translated into muscular energies ; it only 
knows that nervous or muscular energy is elicited or set 
free by its volition. It is said that all physical energy is 
resolvable into motion; but it has not been shown that 
thought is resolvable into motion, and even physical 
energy must be the motion of something that moves. 

3 .The Theistic hypothesis is reasonable . 1 This hypoth- 
esis, which affirms the existence of a Supreme Being, 
personal, wise, and good, the Creator and Sustainer of 
all other beings, satisfies best of all the entire spiritual 
nature of man. Yet most of the evidence on which it 
rests is probable, rather than demonstrative. It may 
therefore be discredited by one who is unwilling to believe 
in God. Some parts of it suffer from our ignorance of 
Nature in its vast extent ; for although it is right to pre- 
sume that a partial knowledge of the universe points to 
the same conclusions which a full knowledge of it would 
authorize, we cannot be absolutely certain of this. “We 
know in part,” and it is at least possible that the remote 
parts and periods of the universe are less homogeneous 
and uniform than the phenomena of earth suggest. 

There are two characteristics of Nature which find 
their best explanation in the being of a personal God. 

( 1 ) One of these is the prevalence of order in the uni- 
verse. This branch of the theistic argument has been 

1 Harris (S.), “The Philosophical Basis of Theism,” 1883; 
“ The Self- Revelation ‘of God,” 1887 ; “ God the Creator and 
Lord of All,” 1896; Morris (J.), “A New Natural Theology 
Based on the Doctrine of Evolution” (thorough, not easy); 
Fisher (G. P.), “The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief,” 
1883 (brief, but to the point); Flint (R.), “Theism,” 5th ed., 
1886; “ Anti-Theistic Theories,” 2nd ed., 1880 (well digested); 
Diman (J. L.), “The Theistic Argument,” 1881 (an admirable 
survey of the field); Foster (R. S.), “Theism,” “Creation” 
(popular, readable, instructive); Martineau (J.), “Religion and 
Modern Materialism,” 1878 (keen and sagacious). 


26 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


called Futaxiology. “ I believe/’ writes Prof. J. P. 
Cooke, of Harvard College, in his instructive volume on 
the Religion of Chemistry, “ that all parts of nature are 
correlated by laws, and that the wider our knowledge be- 
comes the more universal these laws will appear.” 

And Prof. Samuel Harris, in his “ Philosophical Basis 
of Theism,” says, “If it is legitimate for Spencer and 
Tyndall to affirm that the Absolute Being is a power, be- 
cause it is the ultimate ground of the power manifested 
in the universe, it is equally legitimate to affirm that the 
Absolute Being is a rational power, because it is the ulti- 
mate ground of the rational power manifested in the uni- 
verse ” (p. 76). 

Such order as we observe in nature is what might be 
expected from the action of a Supreme. Mind, since all 
that is known of mind leads us to think of it as able and 
likely to produce a Cosmos, if it produced a world at all. 
Furthermore, such order as prevails in nature cannot be 
rationally ascribed to the properties of matter. For 
matter is not known to think or foresee or plan. It is 
unconscious and without freedom, ejecting its force with 
no self-chosen reference to order, beauty or moral worth. 1 

(2) A second characteristic of Nature is marks of de- 
sign in the structure of its parts. This branch of the 
theistic argument has been called Teleology. Socrates 
made use of it, regarding all the organs of sense as 
adapted to the external world. He called attention to 
the delicacy and sensitiveness of the eye as an organ most 
useful to living beings and most skillfully guarded by 
the eyelids, the eyebrows, and the eyelashes. 

The- Bridgewater Treatises elaborate this argument in 
many directions with great learning. The principle of 
the argument is thus stated by Dr. Thomas Hill, 2 

Compare Dawson (J. W.), “Modern Ideas of Evolution,” 
p. 188-9. 

2 In the Unitarian Review, 1885, p. 41 1. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 27 

“ When an organ is found effecting a result, the presump- 
tion is that it was created in order to effect that result ; and 
this presumption is strengthened in the compound ratio of 
the complication of the organ, the efficacy of its action, the 
value of the result, and our inability to see other uses for 
the organ, or better means of effecting the result; the pre- 
sumption being thus readily raised to a moral certainty.” 

Of course the creation of the organ may have been 
effected either directly or indirectly, either by one act or 
by a thousand acts. Evolution is neither affirmed nor 
denied by President Hill, or by the argument from design 
when properly stated. And the argument would lose 
nothing in cogency, if it were assumed that the adaptation 
of the organ and its environment were mutual with ref- 
erence to the end sought. Design, purpose, finality is the 
essential matter in this argument; if nature animate or 
inanimate gives signs of it, it must have been formed or 
controlled by mind. The parts of the universe accessible 
to human observation are related to one another in an 
intelligible manner; we live in an intelligible universe; 
and this fact can only be explained by referring it to the 
action of a Supreme Mind. 

Objections. But against this conclusion have been 
urged the facts : 

a. That some parts of living beings appear to be 
useless. 

In reply to this criticism of the argument from order 
and design in Nature, it may be remarked, first, that 
there are very few, if any, parts of animals which can be 
safely pronounced useless. It may be premature to af- 
firm that there are any. For, in addition to preserving 
and transmitting life, the structure of animals may be 
intended to serve an educational purpose, by showing 
their derivation from an inferior ancestry, or from an 
ancestry living in very different circumstances. In such 
instances the parts supposed to be useless are illustrations 


28 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of law and order in the evolution of animal life and are 
therefore in a high degree serviceable to man. They 
were once useful in preserving life ; they are now useful 
as records of the past. 

b. That some forces .of nature appear to do more 
harm than good. Such things are best explained by sup- 
posing the universe to be the result of interaction between 
blind or unconscious forces. 

In reply to the second item of this criticism it may also 
be remarked, that forces commonly destructive may, 
nevertheless, be needed and useful. Famines, pestilences, 
earthquakes, cyclones, conflagrations, and poisons are 
among these. There is “ a soul of goodness ” in them. 
They teach important truths, and cultivate holy and heroic 
tempers. Bad as the moral conduct of man is, it would 
certainly be much worse if all the forces of nature were 
harmless, and the burdens and perils of life were re- 
moved. Destructive forces must therefore be studied 
as parts of an educational system, established for high 
natural and spiritual ends not otherwise attainable. Ar- 
rival and surrival of the fittest may necessitate evil in the 
making. 

4. The Genetic History of Nature Theistic. But this 
allusion to the modern doctrine of evolution brings 
before us the question, Cannot the existing forces 
and processes and forms of nature be rationally ac- 
counted for without referring them to the action of an 
intelligent being? Are we not led back step by step in 
the paths of science from human life to animal life, 
from animal life to vegetable life, from vegetable life to 
chemical combinations, from aggregated chemical combi- 
nations to planets, and then nebulae, and from nebulae to 
fire-mist? Is it not safe to assume that the original fire- 
mist had in itself “ the promise and potency ” of all that 
has since appeared in the universe? 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 29 

These questions presuppose several stages in the genetic 
history of nature, and lead us to inspect those stages 
seriatim, but especially the transitions from one stage 
or stratum to another. For it is easier to imagine a cer- 
tain degree of progress in forms of being once estab- 
lished, than to imagine a change per saltum from one 
form of being to an apparently heterogeneous and dis- 
tinctly higher form. 

(1) The first step of advance from fire-mist to the 
present forms of existence in nature must have been, it 
is said, the production of atoms. Atoms are ultimate 
and irreducible units. No available amount of heat is 
able to make any change in them, and matter in the 
present order of nature has for one of its conditions the 
indestructibility of atoms. But there are more than 
seventy kinds of atoms, and the properties of each one of 
them differ from the properties of every other. These 
atoms are sometimes supposed to be centres of force, and 
sometimes, vortex rings. But no microscope is power- 
ful enough to render them visible. They are infinites- 
imal in size. But they are now thought to be secondary 
forms of matter, derived from an original, homogeneous 
substance. “ The atoms were born.” In them “ the 
energies of the universe were manifested” (Morris). 
And they were so manifested as to produce elements 
suited to act and react upon one another, forming mole- 
cules, and masses, suns and planets. Hence the atoms 
must have been made for a purpose. The energies of the 
homogeneous substance operated in an intelligent man- 
ner: that substance must therefore have been intelligent 
itself, or it must have been set in motion by intelligence. 
If not, we have in the effect something wholly wanting 
in the cause, which is scarcely credible. 

(2) Another step in advance was made by the ap- 
pearance of vegetable life on earth. Nutrition dis- 
tinguishes the living substance from the mineral. The 


30 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

crystal attracts to itself only molecules possessing its own 
chemical composition, the protoplasm absorbs substances 
of variable composition, decomposes them, assimilates 
some of their parts and rejects others . 1 The properties 
of living matter are, first, a peculiar chemical constitu- 
tion; second, waste by oxydation; third, growth by ap- 
propriating fresh material within; fourth, tendency to 
cyclical change and reproduction; and fifth, dependence 
on moisture and heat. 

Palaeontology teaches that undifferentiated matter, 
atoms, molecules, masses, suns, and planets, with sur- 
faces of reduced temperature, preceded the existence of 
vegetables. Prof. Huxley has admitted that no form of 
life known to man could have existed in the cosmic vapor. 
And it is equally certain that no form of life known to 
man can exist in the sun. Moisture and moderate tem- 
perature are conditions of vegetable life. The utmost 
extremes of heat and cold are barriers to the existence 
of living organisms, whether simple or complex. 

But how were vegetables originated? To this we 
answer, with our present light : a. Not by the un- 
assisted properties of matter. For no living organism 
is born of lifeless matter. “ Life from life ” is a uni- 
versal fact. Inert matter does not lift itself into the 
realm of life. After long and skilful experimentation 
Prof. Tyndall found it impossible to obtain life from any- 
thing lifeless. But b. by the energy or action of God. 
In him we find a Vera Causa for so wonderful a force, 
for an energy without weight, an energy which controls 
and coordinates chemical elements, without being itself 
a chemical element. 

If the cosmos was originated by a Supreme Mind, we 
can account for the origin of vegetable life, and for its 
origin at the first opportune moment. At the very hour 
when all things were ready, the higher principle, in the 
1 Perrier. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 31 

form of protoplasm or of plant, would naturally be in- 
troduced by this Mind, and the marvelous world of plant 
life would be started on its great career of blessing and 
of beauty. 

(3) A further step in advance was made by the ap- 
pearance of animal life on the earth. The transition 
from vegetable to animal life is obscure, and the line of 
separation between the one and the other faint. Yet 
they are distinguishable at the following points. 

a. Animals of every kind are nourished by food pro- 
duced by living organisms, while vegetables are nour- 
ished by inorganic matter. This is a most important 
difference. 

Says Prof. Asa Gray: 

“ Plants only are nourished upon mineral matter and upon 
earth and air. It is their peculiar office to appropriate 
mineral materials and organize them into a structure in 
which life is manifested . . . Animals appropriate and live 
upon organic matter, but have not the power of producing 
it.” 1 

b. Animal life affords proof of conscious feeling, if 
not of consecutive thought. Note the impassable gulf 
which separates the elephant, the horse, the dog, the 
ape, the carrier pigeon, or the eagle, from the oak, 
the vine, the maple or the cedar, c. Animal life has 
powers of locomotion distinguishing it from vegetable 
life. Its movements are more like those of men. They 
are self-directed and evidently conscious. 

Thus in food, in sensibility, in knowledge, and in loco- 
motion, the animal is far superior to the plant; and 
whether we reason from the principle of a sufficient 
cause, or from the observed law of heredity, we shall 
find the derivation of animals from plants alone ex- 
ceedingly improbable. 

1 Compare Morris, “A New Natural Theology,” etc., p. 117. 


32 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

The two facts, that animals are dependent on living 
organisms for food while vegetables are not, and that 
animals are a distinctly higher order of beings than 
vegetables, favor the hypothesis that vegetable life pre- 
ceded animal life on this planet. Yet it is conceivable 
that both appeared at the same time, though it is not 
credible that animal life antedated vegetable life. The 
order of change in nature has been from the simpler to the 
more complex, from the lower to the higher forms of 
being ; and the higher forms depend upon the lower much 
more than do the lower upon the higher. 

Objections to this View 

But the defenders of merely natural evolution object 
to theism (i), because multitudes of animals perish pre- 
maturely, i. e., without completing the cycle of growth, 
decay, and death for which they seem to be fitted. For 
this fact militates against the supposition that a wise 
being originated them. Such a being would have post- 
poned his originative action until a perfect environment 
had been provided for them. 

In reply to this we remark : a. That a wise Creator 
may be rationally conceived to have placed living beings 
in an environment imperfectly adapted to them, provided 
it was so well adapted to them that multitudes would 
grow up to maturity though other multitudes would 
perish prematurely with but little suffering, b. It is 
possible that no environment could, in the nature of the 
case, be perfectly adapted to every one of a great variety 
of species, though it could be partially adapted to all, and 
would therefore be able to support more animals in the 
aggregate than it could support of any single species, 
to which it might have been perfectly adapted. 

Theism is objected to, (2), because many races of ani- 
mals live by destroying other animals for food. Land 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


33 


and sea swarm with carnivorous beings, and the strong 
constantly devour the weak. Hundreds of species have 
been destroyed in this way. 

We reply, a., that a vastly greater amount of animal 
life exists on earth than would be possible if animals did 
not devour one another. The air swarms with insects, 
the water is full of living things, the flowers of the desert 
are astir with myriads of tiny creatures. And b. that 
a sudden and early death is probably attended with little 
pain in the case of irrational beings. They do not look 
forward to death as an evil, and they have no anticipa- 
tions of a future life. 

Theism is objected to, (3), because useless organs , or 
remains of organs, are found in many animals, a fact which 
is inconsistent with the hypothesis that animals owe their 
existence to an intelligent being, but consistent with the 
hypothesis that they are products of natural evolution. 

We reply, that certain organs esteemed useless may be 
due, a., to a love of order, harmony, or symmetry ex- 
isting in the Creator’s mind, or, b., to a process of evo- 
lution by means of which the Creator is pleased to work, 
or, c., to the educational value of traces of past forms 
of life in revealing to men the ways of God, and making 
the universe intelligible to them. 

(4) A still further step in advance was made by the 
appearance of Mankind on the earth. The interval be- 
tween the lower animals and man is very wide. For man 
is a being at once rational , moral , and religious; and we 
must either suppose that he is the product of mere vital 
energies, acting without reason, or that germs of reason, 
moral sense, and religion were latent in animal life, and 
still earlier in chemical atoms, or else that a Supreme 
Mind was concerned in the creation of mankind. It has 
been claimed “ that the life in man is a possession which 
he shares in common with the beast of the field — that 
the life which animates the world is but one existence 


34 • MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

variously developed, sleeping in the plant, dreaming in 
the animal, waking in man” (Matheson). But this 
theory of life, however poetic, is supported by no evi- 
dence. It is a fancy against which we are no more called 
to argue than we are to weigh a shadow. We are bound 
to deal with the solid facts pertaining to animals and 
men, facts which show how much they have in common 
and how much they differ; and then to decide whether 
men are, or are not, derived wholly from animals, with- 
out the intervention of a higher power. 

(i) Mankind are rational beings. Let us compare 
human intelligence with animal intelligence, observing: 

a. That the size of the human brain , the immediate 
organ of thought, is so much greater than that of any 
animal brain as to discredit a merely natural evolution 
of the one from the other. 

b. That human language differentiates men from 
animals even more distinctly than the greater size of 
their brain. The flexibility, compass, and precision of 
human speech are amazing, and these qualities reveal the 
vast capacity of the mind which employs them. 

c. That the hand of man distinguishes him greatly 
from the highest animals. It answers in a wonderful 
degree to the wide range of his mental powers. The 
well known Bridgewater treatise by Dr. Bell gives ample 
proof of this statement, and is worthy of careful 
perusal. 

d. That the constructive art of man is vastly superior 
to that of animals, showing that both cannot belong to 
the same order of life. The former is free, progressive, 
and almost unlimited in range, while the latter is chiefly 
inherited and always limited in range. 

e. That human appreciation of the sublime and beau- 
tiful is wanting in animals. A great mountain or cata- 
ract fills the soul of man with wonder and awe ; a beauti- 
ful landscape or flower fills it with pleasure; but there 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


35 


is no evidence that a dog or an elephant is thus affected 
by either. 

f. That the power of imagination differentiates human 
intelligence from that of mere animals. The prod- 
ucts of human imagination in architecture, in sculp- 
ture, in literature, in music, in poetry, in painting, in 
mechanical invention, and in pure geometry, are end- 
lessly varied and surprising. How much that is inspir- 
ing would be swept from the earth if all the works of 
this royal power were destroyed ! 

g. That human intelligence is able to form general 
concepts , while animal intelligence seems unable to do 
this. The former cognizes the properties and relations 
of things as well as the things themselves. It classifies 
facts and systematizes knowledge. But brutes are in- 
nocent of science and philosophy, the highest achieve- 
ments of man. 

h. That human intelligence not only perceives ex- 
ternal objects, but reflects upon its act of perception, 
upon its reflection on this act, and indeed upon all its 
mental action. It is able to criticise its own work. It is 
conscious of two worlds, an outward and an inward, and 
can study the changes of one almost as readily as the 
changes of the other. This power of introspection does 
not reveal itself in brutes. 

i. That human intelligence is characterized by curi- 
osity, aspiration, and endless progress, while animal in- 
telligence is distinguished for restfulness and content. 
The latter reaches the limits of growth early, the former 
never. Animal intelligence gives no sign of interest in 
anything beyond the range of experience through sensa- 
tion, but human intelligence or reason seeks to explore 
the universe and look into eternity in quest of causes and 
motives . 1 

1 See Dawson (J. W.), “Modern Ideas of Evolution,” p. 196, 
“ On the Nature of Instinct.” 


36 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

(2) Again, mankind are moral beings , and as such are 
separated widely from brutes — so widely, indeed, that 
we cannot believe them to have been the offspring of 
brutes by any process of merely natural development. 
The presence in men of a moral faculty which is wanting 
to the animal races, forbids the hypothesis of man’s de- 
scent from any one of those races. That this faculty is 
wanting to mere animals has been generally admitted and 
never successfully disproved. We may therefore assume 
it to be true. 

It may properly be added, a. that the consciousness 
of moral obligation involves belief in a Law outside of 
ourselves to which our conduct ought to be conformed ; 
b. that with this consciousness of obligation and belief 
in a moral law above us is connected an instinctive and 
profound conviction that there is, back of that law, a 
“ Power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness ” ; 
and c. that this Power cannot rationally be regarded 
as destitute of reason and moral character. It must be 
a Supreme Mind to- whom all rational beings are ac- 
countable. 

From the moral nature of man Immanuel Kant in- 
ferred the existence of God. This argument he pro- 
nounced absolutely trustworthy, although he rejected all 
the others then in use as unworthy of confidence. Sir 
Wm. Hamilton agreed with Kant in accepting this evi- 
dence of the existence of God as conclusive, but he as- 
sociated with it the mental law by which motive precedes 
action as final causes precede efficient causes. By the 
normal action of conscience, therefore, God is revealed 
to the reason of man. 1 

(3) Still further, mankind are religious beings, and as 
such are yet more widely separated from brutes than they 
are by their rational and moral powers. The evidence 
for this proposition may be found in our own conscious- 

1 See Diman, “ The Theistic Argument/’ pp. 248, 249. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 37 

ness, in the history of mankind, and in the universal 
practice of religious worship. Every glance at history, 
every survey of the world as it now is, and every look 
into the life of one’s own soul reveals the presence of 
religious need and aspiration. 

a. Man has a deep feeling of dependence on a higher 
power. Schleiermacher regards this feeling of depend- 
ence as the distinctively religious quality of human life. 
Dorner also assigns to this feeling an important place 
and function in true piety. Whoever, instead of strug- 
gling against it, welcomes it as a feeling in harmony with 
truth and freighted with peace, is one whose religious 
life must be flowing clear and strong towards the goal 
of perfection. And Dean Mansel has truly said : 

“ With the first development of consciousness there grows 
up as part of it an innate feeling that our life, natural and 
spiritual, is not in our own power to sustain or prolong; 
that there is One above us on whom we are dependent, whose 
existence we learn and whose presence- we realize by the 
instinct of prayer.” 1 

b. Man has a vague but indestructible sense of moral 
accountability. This is*"eften conceded by men who re- 
ject the authority of God; and a simple assertion of this 
truth, by one who thoroughly believes it, has wonderful 
power over the consciences of men. A majority of man- 
kind who believe in the existence of a moral Ruler of the 
world, do this not because they have considered the ar- 
guments for his existence, but because they have a moral 
nature, a conscience, that somehow testifies of him. 
This is always to be remembered in studying the condi- 
tion of the heathen. 

c. Man has a tendency to worship some being dis- 
tinct from himself and a certain longing for communion 
with that being. This appears in some members of every 

1 “ Limits of Religious Thought,” p. 120. 


38 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

branch of the human family. The rude and the culti- 
vated manifest the same tendency. They feel a need of 
God, and if they refuse to worship the true God, they are 
likely in the end to bow down with superstitious fear be- 
fore a false god. If, like Comte, they deny the Lord that 
made them, their religious need is apt to avenge itself, by 
impelling them to worship the “ creature [mankind] in- 
stead of the Creator.” 

d. We may also observe, that religion differs from 
morality, which it implies, by always having a personal 
object. If the moral law is traceable to God as its 
Source, it is in reality nothing more nor less than one rev- 
elation of a perfect and holy Mind, one expression of 
a true and loving Heart. And man, who is himself mind 
and heart, a person conscious of acting freely, with a view 
to rational ends, must look beyond the law to the Law- 
giver, never finding rest until he comes to One whom he 
can love and honor, and with whom he can speak and 
commune. True religion is an attitude of mind to mind, 
of heart to heart, of person to person. The soul of man 
cries out for a living and personal God, and not for mere 
order or unconscious force. Amid the awful move- 
ments of the Universe, it lifts up its face to One who has 
an eye to see, an ear to hear, a heart to love ; and finding 
Him, it rests and adores. 

e. The religious nature of man seeks a perfect Being 
as the only satisfactory object of worship. We do not 
mean by this that every human being has in his mind 
the idea of an absolutely perfect Being ; much less do we 
mean that every man who has this idea is full of rev- 
erence and devotion towards such a Being; but we mean 
that the soul of man has capacities and aspirations, 
either slumbering or awake, that will never be per- 
manently satisfied with an imperfect object of worship; 
we mean that the nature of man will never find its true 
Sovereign and central Life until it finds the infinite God, 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 39 

revealed, though dimly, to and by its deepest longings 
in its most lucid moments. 

f. Since the nature of man requires perfection in the 
object of its worship, it is reasonable to believe that God 
is perfect. And it is only by considering and respecting 
this demand of man’s spiritual nature that one can infer 
the absolute perfection of God from the things that he 
has made. For the created universe cannot be proved to 
be infinite; nor can a finite effect, considered merely as 
a product of energy, prove the existence of an infinite 
cause. But, starting with the truth that the Maker of all 
things has shown himself to be superlatively wise and 
powerful, it is irrational to think that he has endowed 
man with a religious nature adapted to the worship of 
any other being than himself, or needing for its eternal 
satisfaction any greater or better being than himself. It 
is from this point of view, — the spiritual nature of 
man, — that we obtain a sight of proof of the existence 
of such a God as is revealed by the life and teaching of 
Jesus Christ, a God of perfect wisdom and goodness. 
This argument is retrogressive, from effect to cause, as 
are all the preceding arguments. 

To this extent is God revealed in Nature, and especially 
in the spirit of man. Had he made no other revelation 
of himself, it would have been possible for us to believe 
in him as personal, wise, and powerful beyond the highest 
reach of our comprehension. And this would make it 
our duty to serve him faithfully, though it would give 
us as transgressors no certain grounds for hope in his 
mercy. 

But can we not go a step further before turning to the 
Scriptures for light? Is there not some logical process 
by which we can demonstrate the existence of an all- 
perfect Creator? We think not, though some of the 
ablest logicians have tried to show that there is. 

5. A priori arguments favorable to theism. 


40 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

(1) Among these were Anselm (d. April 21, 1109) 
whose argument reads thus : God is something than 
which nothing greater can be thought . . . But that some- 
thing than which nothing greater can be thought cannot 
be in the intellect only; for if it be in the intellect only, 
it can be thought to be in reality also — which would he 
greater This argument proves that our conception of 
the greatest being is the conception of a real being, but 
it does not prove that such a being really exists. 

(2) Samuel Clarke (d. May 17, 1729) proposed the 
following: “ Necessary ideas are true. The ideas of in- 
finity and eternity are necessary. But infinity and eter- 
nity are attributes, not essences; they inhere in some 
being who is infinite and eternal, therefore in God.” 
Plausible, but not conclusive, for we do not conceive of 
infinity and eternity as being necessarily attributes of real 
existence. 

(3) Cousin (d. Jan. 13, 1867) says that “ truth, beauty, 
and goodness are attributes; therefore absolute truth, 
beauty, and goodness must belong to an absolute being, 
i. e.j God.” This is plausible but not demonstrative; for 
our conception of absolute truth, beauty, and goodness 
does not prove their real existence. 

None of these arguments are logically conclusive. The 
most that can be said is, that the ideas of self-existence, 
infinity, eternity, and supreme perfection are natural to 
the human mind, and, perhaps, that the tendency to as- 
sociate them with a living Being is strong. These two 
facts may suffice to establish a presumption of no little 
value in favor of the existence of God, but, if this is all, 
they belong to the same class as those previously ex- 
amined, i. e., to the class* of a posteriori arguments. 
In spite of them one can doubt the existence of God, 
and this doubt is not, in the strictness of logic, an ab- 
surdity. 

In the light of our study thus far, it must be admitted : 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


41 


III. That the Revelation of God in Nature is In- 
sufficient 

If this revelation is looked upon as intended for the 
instruction of mankind in their present moral condition, 
it leaves many vital questions unanswered. Whether it 
would be found perfect by sinless and immortal beings, 
possessing a very high order of intelligence, may be 
doubtful; but 1. it certainly fails to make clear to sin- 
ful men the whole mind of God towards them. Its testi- 
mony as to Divine mercy and grace is apparently waver- 
ing. 2. It does not reveal the course which God will 
take with sinners hereafter. 3. It says nothing of 
Divine self-sacrifice. 4. It discloses nothing as to the 
inner life of God, and nothing quite satisfactory con- 
cerning the future life of man. We are ready therefore 
to welcome clearer light upon the Author of our being. 


CHAPTER II 


GOD REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE 

T HERE is reason for distinguishing the Bible from 
Nature as a source of theistic revelation. This 
reason is found in our belief that the sacred Scriptures 
are records of views of chosen men who were enlightened 
and guided in a supernatural way by the Spirit of God in 
doing their work as religious teachers. If all their illu- 
mination was strictly natural in its origin, their teaching 
as to the existence and will of God should be treated as 
a part of Nature’s testimony, and accounted for as the 
action of reason and conscience in man. If not, we are 
face to face with a special movement of God for the 
recovery of man from sin and death, that is, with a 
method of revelation and grace which transcends in some 
degree the ordinary course of God in Nature. 

But to this special form of revelation two general 
objections are strongly urged. I. In such a revelation 
God gives to some men earlier and better knowledge of 
himself than he gives to others. This earlier and better 
knowledge is equivalent to a better opportunity for salva- 
tion, and therefore to more probability of being saved. 
But all ought to be treated alike. If God reveals himself 
directly to one human being, he can and should reveal 
himself in the same way to every such being. For all 
are entitled to equal advantages, especially of a moral 
and religious nature. 

In reply to this objection to a written revelation, it 
should be said : — 

(i) That the same objection may be urged against the 


42 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 43 

general “ constitution and course of nature.” Some men 
are born into more favorable conditions than others. The 
children of barbarism have less religious knowledge than 
the children of civilization. And this difference is due to 
conditions established indirectly, if not directly, by the 
Author of Nature. Is, then, a supernatural method of 
action on the part of God to be discredited, although it 
agrees with the natural method of his working which 
places some men for a time in better circumstances than 
others? We think not.' Besides, the objection assumes 
that God is under obligation to give the same or equal 
capacities and opportunities to all moral beings, — an as- 
sumption which is contradicted by the whole history of 
mankind. 

(2) That this objection undervalues the importance of 
moral responsibility in the formation of moral character. 
It puts everything upon God. It thinks of him as re- 
lated to individuals who are dependent on him, but who 
are not thought of as free moral agents connected with 
him and also with one another. In reality, men are 
social beings, members of a family, and under obligation 
to serve one another. And as social life is nobler and 
richer th^n solitary life, so it brings with it more and 
greater responsibilities. The higher the good, the greater 
the price which must be paid for it. By virtue of his con- 
nection with mankind every human being is to a certain 
extent his brother's keeper. In order to train men as a 
race of moral beings, God' must hold them to the duties 
which spring out of their connections with one another. 
He must treat them as a family, bound to live and to work, 
together for the good of each and of all. And to do this, 
on any large scale, he must intrust the early training of 
children to their parents, and the higher instruction of the 
people in religion and morality to leaders whom he selects 
and qualifies for their arduous service. If this method 
of conveying truth through one person to others, whether 


44 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


by voice or pen, fails to insure the equal enlightenment 
of all, it must be through the unfaithfulness of those who 
have received the truth and been charged with the duty 
of transmitting it, or else through the indifference or 
opposition of some of those to whom it is offered. The 
method is good, honoring the moral nature of man. 

It is also objected, — 

2. That in making such a revelation God must act in 
an extraordinary, i. e., a supernatural manner, and such 
action is incredible. Order is supreme and unbroken in 
the action of God, and any account of his deviating in the 
slightest degree from his usual method of working may 
be safely rejected as false. 

To this objection one may reply: — 

(1) That the action of God is presumably more like 
that of the human spirit than like that of physical force. 
For certain purposes, it must be regular ; for other pur- 
poses it may be variable. It may deal in one way with 
lifeless matter, in another, with rational souls. If man, 
as we know, can act upon the energies of nature, and, by 
combining, dividing, or reinforcing them, secure unex- 
pected results, God can surely do the same to a far greater 
extent. 

(2) That supernatural action must be distinguished 
from unnatural or contra-natural action. Supernatural 
action is not, in the case supposed, hostile to universal 
order. It tends to restore harmony, — especially when 
the spiritual world is viewed in its connections with the 
natural world. If the tenor of a written revelation were 
opposed to the order which prevails in nature, or if the 
proper authentication of it could only have been made by 
divine action which was derogatory to the general order 
and manifest purpose of nature, the objection now urged 
would have weight. But neither of these suppositions 
is according to fact. The ratification which was given 
to the teaching of Christ and his apostles is described by 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 45 

such terms as “ wonders,” “ signs,” “ powers,” “works 
that none but God can do,” or “ events that none but God 
can foreknow.” But they were in no case slights upon 
the order of nature. They had no tendency to diminish 
one’s confidence in the uniformity of natural laws as 
related to man and his welfare. 

(3) On the other hand, there are good reasons for be- 
lieving that such a revelation of God and his will as the 
Bible purports to furnish, is neither impossible, nor in- 
credible, nor even improbable. It is not impossible, for 
the existence of a personal God, above nature and able to 
direct her forces into new channels, is surely possible. It 
is not incredible, for wise and sane men believe that it 
has been made. And it is not even improbable, for the 
existence of a personal God, willing to furnish the children 
of men with more knowledge of himself than they obtain 
from nature is surely probable. For if there is a God, it 
may be presumed that he is merciful ; if there is a merci- 
ful God, it is not improbable that he would make a special 
revelation of his mercy to men whose minds are darkened 
by sin ; and if there is a holy as well as merciful God, it is 
probable that this revelation would be given in such a 
form as would test and improve the moral character of 
those to whom it was made. The Holy Scriptures fulfil 
these conditions. We are therefore to investigate their 
claim to being a revelation of God, without feeling that 
there is, on the whole, any presumption against the truth- 
fulness of that claim. In other words, a supernatural 
revelation, committed to writing, is not to be considered, 
before investigation, improbable. 

But what steps must we take in order to answer the 
question, Is the Bible a trustworthy revelation of God , 
i. e., of his being, his character, and his relation to other 
beings, especially to men? We begin with a study of the 
New Testament writings as historical documents relating 
to Jesus Christ, to his disciples, and to their contempora- 


46 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ries, and, having satisfied ourselves as to their character 
and teaching, go back with them in our hands to a study 
of the Old Testament writings. Our first proposition 
is that : 

The New Testament Scriptures are trustworthy 

AS HISTORICAL RECORDS. 

The trustworthiness of primary historical records main- 
ly depends on the opportunities which the writers had to 
learn the truth ; on their powers of observation, memory 
and expression ; on their desire to learn and to report the 
truth; on their number and essential agreement; and on 
the consistency of their testimony with experience in simi- 
lar circumstances. 

Applying these tests to the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, we find, that their opportunities to learn the facts 
which they relate were ample. For : 

i. Christianity as a historical religion took its rise with 
the public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth , in Palestine, 
near the end of the third decade of our era. 

In support of this statement we remark that there are 
no traces whatever of the existence of this religion before 
the date mentioned, “ near the end of the third decade of 
our era,” a.d. 28-30; and that one hundred years later, 
a.d. 130, it had already spread itself over large provinces 
of the Roman Empire. 1 

Dr. Gieseler in the article referred to 2 concludes that 

1 See Pliny the Younger, Epist. X. 97, cf. X. 98; Tacitus, 
“Annals,’’ XV, 44; Suetonius, “Vita Neronis,” § 16, and “ Vita 
Claudii,” § 25; also Juvenal, “Sat.,” I, 155, 157; Euseb., H. E., 
IV, 9; and Josephus, Ant., XVIII, iii, 3; and compare an article 
by Gieseler, in the “ Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologie,” 1878, 
p. 86 sq. on the passage in “Josephus.” A brief notice of “the 
data furnished by pagan literature” may be found in Dr. E. C. 
Mitchell's “ Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament,” 
2d ed., p. 20 sq. 

2 The passage is bracketed in Bekker’s edition of “Josephus,” 
though the reference to Jesus in Ant. XX, ix, 1, is treated as 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 47 

the original form of Josephus’ statement read as follows : 
“ There appeared about this time, Jesus, a wise man, a 
doer of wonderful works, a teacher of the men who re- 
ceive the truth with pleasure ; and many of the Jews, but 
many also from the Greeks, he drew to himself. This 
one was [ called ] the Christ. And although Pilate, on the 
accusation of the best men among us had punished him 
with crucifixion, those who first loved him did not cease. 
And until now the race of Christians named from this one 
has not failed.” 

All the early Christian writers who speak of the matter 
agree in stating that Jesus Christ was crucified by order 
of Pontius Pilate, who was procurator of Judea from 
about a.d. 26 to a.d. 36. The appearance of Christian- 
ity as a historical religion may therefore be assigned with 
reasonable confidence to the thirtieth year of our era, and 
the public ministry of Jesus to the three or three and a 
half years preceding that date. 

2. The several hooks of the New Testament were 
written by immediate disciples, that is, pupils, of Jesus, 
or by some of their associates, before the close of the first 
century of our era . 1 

genuine. This reference is no less valuable historically than the 
one which is bracketed. (Compare Gieseler’s “Ecclesiastical 
History” (Am. Ed., H. B. Smith), Vol. I, p. 66; and Rawlin- 
son’s “ Historical Evidences,” Lecture VII.) 

1 Literature : Westcott (B. F.), “History of the Canon of 
the New Testament”; Charteris (A. H.), “Canonicity: A Col- 
lection of Early Testimonies to the Canonical Books of the New 
Testament”; Given (J. J.), “The Truth of Scripture in Connec- 
tion with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon”; Davidson 
(S.), “Canon of the Bible,” 3d edition, 1880; Tregelles (S. P.), 
“Canon Muritorianus ” ; Farrar (F. W.), “The Messages of the 
Books”; Mitchell (E. C.), “Critical Handbook of the Greek 
New Testament,” enlarged edition, 1896; Credner (K. A.), 
“ Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Canon”; Reuss (E.), 
« History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian 
Church.” Reuss is an able critic of the Kiihner type. 


48 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

( 1 ) The apostle Paul, though not an immediate disciple 
of Jesus, was converted within a few years after his death, 
say from two to five, and was acquainted with some of 
his disciples. He had been educated in Jerusalem, had 
shared with the Pharisees in their enmity to Jesus, had 
engaged with them in persecuting the first Christians, 
had seen the risen Saviour, and had been convinced by 
revelation and study of the Messiahship of Jesus. Less 
than seven years had passed since Jesus began his min- 
istry and less than five since Jesus had been publicly 
crucified, when he gave himself, heart and soul, to Christ. 
He was thoroughly intelligent and intensely conscientious. 
It is therefore incredible that he neglected to make him- 
self familiar with the essential facts concerning Jesus. 
The most important of them seem to have been assured 
to him by revelation; others, pertaining to the outward 
circumstances of the Lord’s life, may have been learned 
from the twelve. There is no reason to believe that he 
was indifferent to any part of the Saviour’s ministry, or 
that he was misinformed as to the nature or object of 
that ministry. 

(2) Thirteen epistles were attributed by the early 
Christians to Paul. They all purport to have been written 
by him. They belong to the class of writings undisputed 
in the time of Eusebius. They are found in the earliest 
versions of the New Testament. Two of them, 1 and 2 
Thessalonians, were probably written in a.d. 52 or 53 ; 
four of them, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, 
in a.d. 57 or 58; four of them, Colossians, Ephesians, 
Philippians, and Philemon, in a.d. 61 or 62 ; and three 
of them, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, about a.d. 66 or 
67. The second group, consisting of four epistles, has 
been received by the principal leaders of modern destruc- 
tive criticism as genuine, and from it have been drawn 
some of the weapons turned against the other epistles. 

(3) If we were to look to these four letters only for 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 49 

Paul’s testimony concerning Jesus Christ we should find 
evidence of his preexistence, as the “ spiritual rock ” that 
accompanied the Israelites in the desert, i Cor. io: 4; of 
his incarnation, when he “ was made of a woman, made 
under law,” Gal. 4:4; of his being “ born of the seed of 
David according to the flesh,” “ but declared Son of God 
in power by resurrection of the dead,” Rom. 1:3; of his 
“ being without sin,” 2 Cor. 5:21, yet “ made sin,” “ made 
a curse,” by suffering death in behalf of sinners, 2 Cor. 
5: 14, 21; Gal. 3: 13; of his instituting the holy supper 
as a memorial of his death, 1 Cor. 1 1 : 23-26 ; of his 
resurrection from the dead, 1 Cor. 15:3-11, and of his 
being now the head of the body of which all believers in 
him are members, 1 Cor. 12 : 12, 27. Other points of less 
importance need not be enumerated. For no proper nar- 
ratives of the life of Jesus should be looked for outside 
of the Gospels. The epistles of James, of Peter, of John, 
and of Jude do not record any of the miracles or parables 
of Jesus. They refer to the same kind of facts as are 
noticed in the epistles of Paul, and as the purpose of their 
letters led them to mention. 

(4) Besides the remaining nine epistles of Paul, the 
first epistle of Peter, the first epistle of John, the four 
Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles were received as 
genuine by all the churches in the time of Eusebius, the 
father of church history, about a.d. 300. 

For our present purpose it is unnecessary to discuss 
the authenticity of the other books of the New Testa- 
ment, viz., the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of 
James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third 
of John, and the Revelation. For if these were of doubt- 
ful origin and credibility, the evidence for the super- 
natural origin of Christianity would not be seriously 
weakened. But — 

(5) The trustworthiness of the four Gospels is a mat- 
ter of the gravest interest, and their claim to our con- 


50 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

fidence as historical records should be thoroughly ex- 
amined. In support of that claim, which lives and 
breathes in almost every paragraph of the Gospels, may 
be urged the following considerations : — 

a. Early Christian Literature leads to the conclu- 
sion that they zvere all zuritten before the end of the 
first century . 1 Justin Martyr, about a.d. 140, refers to 
the Memorabilia of the Apostles , stating that in them 
were “ taught all things concerning our Saviour, Jesus 
Christ,” Apol. I. 33, and in his Dialogue with Trypho he 
speaks of “ the Memorabilia , which, I say, were com- 
posed by the Apostles and those who follow them.” 
And Tertullian, about a.d. 200, says, “ of the Apostles, 
John and Matthew implant faith in us, of their followers, 
Luke and Mark refresh it.” There is conclusive evidence 
that Tatian, a contemporary of Justin Martyr, composed 
a work called Diatessaron, based on the four Gospels, 
and couched in their language. And Irenseus argues 
that precisely four Gospels were required by the great 
harmonies of nature; that the perfection of the Gospel 
record demanded four narratives of the Lord’s life. 

b. All the early versions of the Nezu Testament known 
to scholars contain the four Gospels . This evidence 
is important, though the precise date of the earliest ver- 
sion is not demonstrable. Yet there is reason to think 
it was not later than a.d. 170. The Fragment on the 
Canon, discovered by Muratori in 1738, was probably 
written about a.d. 170 in Greek. It begins with the last 

literature: Norton (A.), “On the Genuineness of the Four 
Gospels”; Tischendorf (C.), “When Were Our Four Gospels 
Written?” Westcott (B. F.), “Introduction to the Study of the 
Four Gospels”; Sanday (W.), “The Gospels in the Second Cen- 
tury”; Lardner (N.), “Credibility of the Gospel History”; Ols- 
hausen (F.), “Die Echtheit der vier Canonischen Evangelien ” ; 
Dale (R. W.), “The Living Christ and the Four Gospels”; 
Westcott (B. F.), “On the Canon of the New Testament,” very 
trustworthy. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 5 1 

words of a sentence which must have referred to the 
Gospel of Mark, and proceeds to speak of the Third 
Gospel as written by Luke, the physician, who did not 
see the Lord, and .then of the Fourth Gospel as written 
by John, a disciple of the Lord, at the request of his 
fellow disciples and his elders. It is true that none of 
the early versions carry us back to the first century, but 
they afford clear evidence of general Christian belief 
from the middle of the second century onward, and it is 
scarcely credible that any important changes of that be- 
lief had taken place within the little more than fifty years 
between the death of John in Ephesus and the appear- 
ance of the earliest versions. 

c. The historical trustworthiness of the fourth Gos- 
pel, though strenuously assailed by a school of modern 
critics, has been satisfactorily vindicated . 1 Baur rele- 
gated its origin to the second half of the second century, 
but the ablest defenders of his general theory have been 
constrained to give the Gospel an earlier and still earlier 
date, until it is plain that they have ho valid grounds 
for denying that it was written in the last years of the 
first century. 

But even if the fourth Gospel were written by John, it 
is thought by some to be untrustworthy, especially in its 
reports of the words of Jesus. In reply to this opinion 
it may be said in favor of the substantial accuracy of 
John’s reports of the words of Jesus: (a) That his ref- 
erences to persons, places, and events are singularly 
exact and circumstantial; (b) That he wrote his Gospel 
for a special purpose, and naturally selected from the 

1 Luthardt (C. E.), “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel”; 
Sanday (W.), “The Fourth Gospel: Was John its Author?”; 
Abbot (E.), “The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External 
Evidences” (in “Critical Essays,” pp. 9-107); Hovey (A.), 
“Introduction to the Gospel of John”; Weiss (B.), “Introduc- 
tion to the Gospel of John” (in Weiss-Meyer’s Commentary). 


52 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

sayings and discourses of Jesus, such as would sub- 
serve that purpose; (c) That there are passages in 
Matthew which strikingly resemble, both in tone and 
style, the teaching of Jesus as reported by John; (d) 
That John may have been peculiarly susceptible to the 
influence of such teaching, so that his own style was 
affected by it; and (e) That in translating the words of 
Jesus from Aramaean into Greek, John may have im- 
parted something of his* own style to his Lord’s teaching, 
without being untrue to the essence of that teaching. 

And if it be insisted that John was an old man when 
he wrote the Gospel, and, therefore, could not recall 
words heard long ago in his early manhood, it must be 
replied that he probably began to teach the words of 
Jesus soon after he heard them, and continued to teach 
them even to old age, — always reverencing them and 
striving to repeat them without change, — just as an 
aged minister of Christ now repeats many parts of Scrip- 
ture, which he learned in early life and which he has re- 
peated in the same terms a hundred or a thousand times. 
The trustworthiness of the fourth Gospel is not then 
disproved by the old age of its author. 

d. Few critical scholars now attempt to discredit the 
origin of the synoptical Gospels in the first century . But 
some difference of judgment prevails as to their relation 
to one another. Many believe that the amount of verbal 
agreement between them points to dependence on one 
another, or on original sources no longer extant in sepa- 
rate works. In the preface to his Gospel Luke speaks of 
several attempts to narrate the life of Jesus, and intimates 
that they were not altogether satisfactory; but he says 
nothing which identifies them with Matthew and Mark. 

Papias says that “ Matthew composed the Logia , or 
Oracles, in Hebrew, and each one interpreted them as he 
was able.” He also affirms that “ Mark, having become 
Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately all that he re- 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 53 

membered; though he did not [record] in order that 
which was either said or done by Christ ; but subsequent- 
ly, as I said [attached himself to] Peter, who used to 
frame his teaching to meet the wants [of his hearers] ; 
and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s 
discourses.” The Logia of Matthew may have antedated 
the Gospel of Mark, and Mark may have borrowed a few 
passages from that work; but a critical study of the 
second Gospel confirms the statement of Papias, that it 
represents the discourses of Peter concerning the ministry 
of Jesus. The Logia are the basis of the first Gospel, but 
it contains many things found also in Mark. The third 
Gospel was probably written after the first and the sec- 
ond, drawing more or less of its materials from the 
sources used by them. 

But whatever may have been the original relation of 
these Gospels to one another, whether that of dependence 
or that of independence, they are remarkable for unity 
in diversity . 1 Indeed, the same is true of the four Gos- 
pels. The records are diverse, yet harmonious. So 
marked are the differences, even in relating the same 
events, that some have affirmed contradiction; yet so 
deep and pervading is the harmony, that others have in- 
ferred transcription. It is impossible to suppose the life 
and character of Jesus Christ an ideal originated by one 
of the Evangelists, since this view would not account for 
the striking diversity in the narratives; and it is equally 

1 Ullmann (C.), “The Sinlessness of Jesus,” “Evidence of 
Christianity” (Ch. Ill, § 4, pp. 93-107) ; Bushnell (H.), “The 
Character of Jesus Forbidding His Possible Classification with 
Men”; Dorner (J. A.), “The Sinless Perfection of Christ,” 
Am. Presby. & Theol. Rev. for 1863; S chaff (P.), “The Person 
of Christ”; Young (J.), “The Christ of History”; Seeley (J. 
R.), “ Ecce Homo”; Parker (J.), “ Ecce Deus ” ; Row (C. A.), 
“The Jesus of the Evangelists”; Hovey (A.), “Madison 
Avenue Lectures,” p. 12 ff. ; Alexander (J. L.), “Christ and 
Christianity,” “ The Self Revelation of Christ.” 


54 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


impossible to suppose the ideal originated by more than 
one of them, since the unity of impression would not be 
accounted for. But if there was such a person as Jesus 
Christ, whose history the Gospels honestly recite, we 
have no difficulty whatever in accounting for the won- 
derful harmony in diversity which they exhibit. For we 
have in them four portraits of the same original, though 
taken by different artists and from different points of 
view. 

e. The evangelists were men of good judgment, as 
the Gospels clearly prove. They do not write like en- 
thusiasts or fanatics, but like men of sound sense and 
practical aim. Their writings prove them to have pos- 
sessed more than average intelligence. And the facts 
which they relate are, for the most part, such as could be 
fairly attested by the senses, — facts that could be seen 
or heard, or verified by touch or taste or smell. No 
scientific training was needed to prepare them to testify 
of such events as are related in the Gospels. 

f. Moreover, they were upright. This may be in- 
ferred from the tone of sincerity and earnestness which 
pervades their writings, from the spirituality of the 
religious doctrines which they inculcate, from the kind 
of motives to which they appeal, from the perfection of 
the moral principles which they teach, and from the sim- 
plicity, frankness, minuteness, positiveness, and object- 
iveness of their style. These writers go through their 
work as if they had taken no part in it themselves and 
had nothing at stake in the matter. One could scarcely 
infer from their language that they had forsaken all for 
Christ, and were ready to lay down their lives for his 
sake. They never eulogize his character, and rarely his 
teaching. They scarcely allude to many questions which 
awaken the utmost curiosity in men addicted to religious 
speculation. “ In its grand, childlike, and holy simplic- 
ity, the narrative passes by such questions of the intellect, 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 55 

just as a child moves among the riddles of nature and of 
life, as if they existed not.” 

g. Finally, it is impossible to conceive of any motive 
which could have led dishonest men to write as they did. 
If they bore false witness in respect to the life and teach- 
ing of Jesus Christ, they did it with no prospect of gain 
in this life, or in that which is to come. Not one of them 
pushes himself to the front in his narrative; not one of 
them, unless it were John in his old age, could have ex- 
pected to be specially remembered or honored because of 
his connection with the Jewish Rabbi who had been 
crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem, and whose sect had 
been everywhere defamed. 

The result of our study of the Gospels is plain — their 
historical trustworthiness. They are entitled to full con- 
fidence when stating, clearly, matters of fact; and a dis- 
covery now and then of minor, unintentional errors would 
not invalidate our conclusion. This result may appear to 
be small and the process of reaching it slow; but it is 
important for the investigation that is to follow. 

Our second proposition is that the New Testament 
Scriptures, especially the Gospels, prove that 
Jesus Christ was an infallible Teacher. 

By an infallible teacher is meant one who teaches truth 
without any mixture of error, one whose instruction, in 
whatever form it may be given, will prove to be wholly 
correct when rightly apprehended. Such a teacher may 
or may not be omniscient ; but if he is not omniscient, he 
must clearly perceive the limits of his knowledge, and 
confine his teaching within those limits. Hence the 
teaching of prophets and apostles may have been in- 
fallible, if it was restricted to what the Holy Spirit moved 
them to say. But this inerrancy of Christ, or of proph- 
ets and apostles (i. e., inspired men), refers only to what 
they teach and not to the forms of speech or illustration 


56 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

by which that teaching is expressed — a point which will 
be further explained in the sequel. 

With what, then, shall we begin our proof that these 
writings manifest the inerrancy of Christ’s teaching? 
A teacher from God may be presumed to know, better 
than anyone else, the work intrusted to him. And if he 
defines his work, it will be safe to make his definition the 
basis of study in trying to ascertain the nature of that 
work. It would obviously be unsafe to ascribe to him 
any attribute or authority which he disclaims. Our dis- 
cussion of the point in question may therefore begin with 
a brief survey of the claims put forth by Jesus Christ as a 
teacher. Taking his own words for our guide, What did 
he know? And how did he teach? 

1. What did he claim to know ? He claimed to know 
heavenly things directly, John 3:11-13; 8:38; the divine 
Father directly, Matt. 11:27; John 6:46; 7:28, 29; 
8:55; 10:15; 17: 10-12; that his words were his Fa- 
ther’s words, John 7:16; 8:28; 12:49; 14:1.0-24; 
17:8; and were immutably true, Mark 13:31; John 
14: 6. He also claimed to be one with the Father, John 
10:30-38; 17: 10-22; to do always the things that are 
pleasing to the Father, John 8:29; and to know all that 
the Father himself does, at least in the matter of human 
salvation, John 5 : 20. This, in brief, was the claim of 
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, and it surely amounts 
to a claim of entire correctness in his teaching. His teach- 
ing was his Father’s teaching, and must therefore have 
been, in his own judgment, free from error. 

2. How did he teach? He spoke almost always in the 
first person singular, and in language of divine authority. 
There are but seven exceptions to the former statement 
on record, John 3 : 1 1 ; 4:22; 9:4; 14:23; 17:11,21, 
22; and in four of these Jesus associates himself with 
the Father. The others can be readily explained without 
assuming that he ranked any human teacher as his peer, 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 57 

or thought of his own words as needing confirmation by 
man. 

Again, he spoke as if he were the final and perfect 
teacher, Matt 5:17 ff. ; 19:8, 9; Mark 13:31; Luke 
21 : 33. The only apparent exception to this statement 
is the language of Jesus concerning the Paraclete whom 
he would send to his disciples after his own departure. 
But the Paraclete was to take of the things of Christ and 
show them to the disciples. He would be able to lead 
them into more truth simply because they would be then 
prepared to receive it. Jesus virtually claims that he 
could and would have revealed it to them, if they had 
been prepared to accept it. Still further, he represented 
the salvation of men as depending on their treatment of 
his words, Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; John 12 : 48 ; 14 : 23 ; 
15:7. Finally, he always spoke as one perfectly master 
of the situation, of the theme and the occasion, never 
confessing that he was in error on any point, and never 
seeming to work his way up from a lower to a higher 
view. He always looked down upon his subject. 

At the same time he declared himself to be meek and 
lowly in heart, willing to perform the humblest service 
to his disciples and mankind. He was ever obedient 
to his Father’s will, an instance of moral perfection in a 
sinful world, teaching men their duty by his example as 
well as by his words. We discover no trace of pride or 
fanaticism or self-seeking in his ministry, and must there- 
fore attach the highest importance to what he says con- 
cerning his teaching and conduct. See Matt. 11:29; 
John 13:4-13; 5 : 30 ; 6:38; 7:18; 4:34. 

This was the manner of Christ ; and on any fair inter- 
pretation of it, it was in perfect accord with his claim to 
inerrancy as a teacher. The two were in such perfect 
harmony as to double the strength of each. They make 
it almost certain that his sense of perfect knowledge as 
to all that he taught was constant, natural, and control- 


58 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

ling. His claims were positive, and he was too humble, 
self-denying, and holy to be mistaken in making them. 

The following facts appear to confirm his claims to 
infallibility and sinlessness : — 

(1) His immediate disciples were convinced of their 
rightfulness. For a. they ascribe to him perfect knowl- 
edge, Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; John 2:24, 25; Acts 
1:24; Rev. 2:23; John 16:30; 21:17; 6:64; 18:4. 
b. They declare him to be full of truth, and the source 
of truth, John 1 : 14, 16. c. They preach his doctrine 
as preeminently the truth, 2 Cor. 4:2 ff. ; Gal. 2:5; 
Eph. 4:21; 2 Tim. 2 : 15. 

(2) Readers of the Gospels have been convinced of 
their rightfulness. The total impression made by the 
testimony of the Gospels has generally had this effect, 
and the value of such testimony cannot easily be over- 
rated. It does not depend on minute points of criticism 
which only a scholar can understand. It depends on the 
broader features and general tone of the narratives, and 
can be appreciated by every upright mind. The eye of 
an unlearned but thoughtful reader is almost certain to 
take in the great features of the picture, and judge them 
correctly. In this connection it is noteworthy that the 
evangelists do not seem to have chosen their materials 
with any special view to proving the moral perfection of 
Jesus. See Matt. 19:17; 8:28-34; Mark 11:12-14; 
Luke 24 : 28. 

(3) His doctrines agree with his claims. This is 
evident when we consider with sufficient care their sim- 
plicity, their self-consistency, their moral purity, their 
comprehensiveness, their practicalness, and their good in- 
fluence. 1 

(4) Many predictions made by him have been fulfilled. 

1 Wendt (H. H.), “The Teaching of Jesus”; Hovey (A.), 
“Teaching of Jesus Christ” in “Christian Teaching and Life,” 
Part I. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 59 

A knowledge of future events is often good evidence that 
God is witn him who possesses it ; and a permanent pos- 
session of such knowledge is evidence of the permanent 
presence of God with the possessor. Now the evangelists 
testify that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrec- 
tion, Matt. 12:40; 16:21-23; 17:22, 23; 20:17-19, 22, 
23 ; 26 : 1, 2 ; Mark io : 38, 39 ; Luke 9 : 44 ; 12 : 50 ; 13 : 33 ; 
17:22, 25; John 2:19-22; 12:7, 23, 32-34; that he 
predicted his desertion by his disciples, his betrayal by 
one of them, and his denial by another, Mark 14: 18-21, 
72; Matt. 26:31-34; John 13:11, 18-26, and several 
other facts concerning them, Matt. 20:23; 10:17-22; 
John 21:18; Mark 14: 13-16, and that he foretold the 
destruction of Jerusalem in that generation, Matt. 24 : 2, 
4, 5, 23-26; Mark 13: 14; Luke 21:12, 16, 20 f. The 
exact fulfillment of these predictions is good reason for 
believing that all his teaching was true. 1 

Exception considered. If it be objected that one of 
his predictions, that of his personal return to earth, has 
failed, see Matt. 24 : 34, it may be answered that his 
language may not have referred to a visible return to 
reign as King in Jerusalem, but only to the destruction 
of Jerusalem — a type of the final judgment of the 
wicked (Bengel, Robinson, and others). Yet the pas- 
sages are confessedly dark and difficult of interpreta- 
tion, and we cannot be sure that we understand them. 
Of course we are unable to find in them anything that 
disproves the infallibility of Jesus. See John 12:24, 
32,33; 16:7-11; Acts 3:19-21; Matt. 28 : 19, 20, and 
per contra Rev. 20:4-6; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15: 
5 I_ 54- 

(5) Many miracles were wrought by him. Miracles 
are changes in nature which must rationally be ascribed 
to divine agency ; or events in the world of sense, 

1 Comp. Euseb. H. E. III. v. ; Robinson’s Researches III. 320 
ff., and Broadus on Matt. 24 : 16. 


6o 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


which, according to sound principles of reason, should be 
ascribed to extraordinary action on the part of God. 

The miracles of Christ served a double purpose : first, 
to reveal his character and spirit, and in this light they 
are a part of his teaching ; and secondly, to attest the truth 
of his claims, and in this light they are equivalent to a 
ratification of his authority, Matt. 11:21; Mark 2: 10, 
11 ; John 2: 23; 3:2; 5 : 36, 37, etc. 1 

Objections to Miracles 

The objections often urged against the credibility of 
miracles are as follows : — Human testimony for mir- 
acles is nullified : 

a. By man’s predisposition to believe in them ; b. by 
the observed uniformity of nature; c. by the certainty 
that God’s works are perfect; d. by the fact that God 
is nothing but a blind force immanent in all things. 

(a) To the first objection we reply, that every normal 
bias of the mind points in the direction of truth, and if 
followed wisely and cautiously will lead to truth. And 
if it is a “ fact that mankind have, in different ages, been 

1 Miracles are called in the New Testament fyya, 5 wdp.eis, 
TtpaTa, or arj/xeia. The last two words frequently come 
together. Indeed, ripara is never used apart from <rr)p.e?a, but 
they appear together sixteen times, if not more. 0avp.a in 2 
Cor. 11:14 means a wonder or a marvel. 0 avp.dcria in Matt. 
21:15, and davp.d<TTa in 1 Pet. 2:9; Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:11, 
wonders. 

Hume (D.), “Of Miracles,” (Essays, Vol. II.) ; Powell (B.), 
“ On the study of the Evidences of Christianity,” in “ Essays and 
Reviews”; Campbell (G.), “Treatise on Miracles”; Wardlaw 
(R.), “On Miracles”; Mosley (J. B.), “Miracles”; Warington 
(G.), “Can we believe in Miracles?”; Westcott (B. F.), “Char- 
acteristics of the Gospel Miracles”; Bushnell (H.), “Nature 
and the Supernatural,” esp. p. 338; Hovey (A.), “The Miracles 
of Christ as attested by the Evangelists”; McCosh (J.), “The 
Supernatural in the Natural”; Mansel (H. L.), “On Miracles as 
Evidences of Christianity,” in “ Aids of Faith.” 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 6 1 

strangely deluded with pretences to miracles and won- 
ders/’ “ it is by no means to be admitted that they have 
been oftener, or are at all, more liable to be deceived by 
these than by other pretences .” 1 

(b) To the second objection we reply, that the order 
of nature is as truly modified by every free act of man as 
by a miracle. Within certain limits man has power to 
act upon the forces and sequences of nature — to disturb 
them, to resist them, to combine them, to guide them, to 
reinforce them; how much more, then, may God, the 
Supreme Mind, control, supplement, overpower, or super- 
sede the forces of nature, to accomplish a high purpose! 
— to restore the moral order which he loves, but 
which man has subverted for a time ! 

(c) To the third objection we may reply, it is by no 
means self-evident that a world, complete in itself, need- 
ing no care or help in any emergency, would be a better 
world than one needing care and help. The oak is not 
necessarily better than the vine. If a universe com- 
prehends in itself created beings who are moral, and are 
to be trained by moral influences, it cannot be shown that 
a need of divine interposition, making natural forces 
bend to the exigencies of moral order, would be an im- 
perfection. “ A created universe,” says Richard Rothe, 
“ which was in itself so perfectly organized that the en- 
trance of the direct agency of God could not be admitted 
. . . would be a barrier for God, and, consequently, as a 
creature, most imperfect.” Imperfection belongs to the 
very idea of the created. A creature can never be suf- 
ficient unto itself. “ The only possible barrier to the 
activity of God would be the self-contradictory, unrea- 
sonable, and therefore unholy.” 2 

(d) To the fourth objection we may reply, that it is an 
argument against theism rather than an argument against 

1 Butler (J.), “Analogy,” Part II., ch. 7. 

2 Rothe , “ Still Hours,” p. 324, f. 


62 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

miracles; it pronounces the existence of God incredible, 
and therefore the occurrence of miracles incredible. If 
nature is all, then the forces of nature will always have 
their way. There is nothing to prevent it. Their way 
will be a blind way, but it is the way they will go. Hence 
Baur and Strauss, resting on their denial of any God but 
nature, were logically consistent in denying the possibil- 
ity of miracles. Pantheism, as well as atheism, is per se 
a rejection of the Christian religion, but pantheism is 
false, and inferences from it are worthless. 

(e) The occurrence of a single miracle would show 
the emptiness of all these objections. If Christ really 
existed as a supernatural being, or if he rose from the 
dead according to the Scriptures, the objections reviewed 
would have no force at all. But for the existence of 
Jesus Christ in Palestine, and his crucifixion under Pon- 
tius Pilate, we appeal to the entire New Testament, and 
indeed to the existence of Christianity in the world. Both 
are unaccountable apart from the actual life and^ministry 
of Jesus Christ at the beginning of our era. 

But what can be said of the testimony offered by the 
evangelists to the wonderful works of Jesus of Naza- 
reth? This, in brief: that the number of witnesses is 
sufficient, their integrity above suspicion, their powers 
of observation and memory excellent, their testimony 
positive, independent, and substantially harmonious, and 
their references to attendant circumstances numerous 
and natural. It is also noticeable that the phenomena 
which they attest were sensible, that the aim of Christ’s 
miracles was godlike, and that his teaching is often 
represented as growing out of his miracles. Moreover, 
there is no rebutting testimony. No one who was pres- 
ent is known to have denied the events recorded by the 
evangelists, and only one who was present could bear wit- 
ness that such events did not then and there take place. 

For these reasons, — the claim of Jesus himself, and 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 63 

the facts which have been adduced in support of that 
claim, — we look to Jesus Christ, the Leader and Per- 
fecter of the faith, the Light of the world, as an infallible 
Teacher, and believe all his words to be true, according 
to the sense and purpose with which there are good 
grounds for believing that he employed them. The task 
of interpretation is sometimes difficult, but the resulting 
truth is pure and sanctifying. 

What, then, did he teach concerning the message which 
his disciples were to bear to mankind? How did he say 
that they should be qualified for their work of reporting 
his words and making known his gospel to the world? 
This question can be answered by a study of his words 
as recorded by them and explained by their conduct. 

Our third proposition, then, is: That the New Tes- 
tament Scriptures, especially the Gospels, prove 
that Jesus Christ promised the inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit to his Apostles, by whom, with some 

OF THEIR ASSOCIATES, THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS 
WRITTEN. 

The word “ inspiration ” is here used to signify a work 
of the Spirit upon the mind as well as upon the heart ; 
upon the intellect as well as upon the affections. It 
touches the whole spiritual being, the understanding, the 
memory, the feelings, the will. It imparts moral sen- 
sitiveness, courage, fairness, purpose, and energy. It 
empowers the inner man to do a sacred and difficult 
work as it ought to be done. Especially does it assist 
the mind in receiving, comprehending, and recalling re- 
ligious truth, and in presenting it effectively to other 
men. In this sense, we use the word “ inspiration,” but 
the reasons for this use of the term will appear later. 

1. The promises referred to in the proposition before 
us are found in Matt, io: 19, 20; Mark 13: 11; Luke 
12:11, 12; John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-15; 


6 4 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Acts 1:5, 8. (Compare John 20:22, 23; 7:38, 39; 
Acts 2 : 17-21.) According to the first three evangelists, 
the Spirit was to be given to assist them in making their 
apology when brought before rulers. The Spirit was to 
assist them, not only in thought but also in expression. 
And to judge by the recorded apologies of Peter and 
Paul, his help was specially useful in their defence of 
Christianity while defending themselves. 

According to the fourth evangelist, the inspiration of 
the Spirit was given to assist them in all their ministry 
as teachers of Christian truth, John 14:26; 15:26; 

16:7, 13-15. 

2. These passages, interpreted simply and naturally, 
prove 

(1) That the Holy Spirit would be the Advocate of 
the Father and the Son in and with the Apostles. This 
follows from the use of the word “ Advocate ” compared 
with John 16:1 4, 15. (2) That the Spirit would bring 

to their remembrance all that Jesus himself had said to 
them (John 14:26). And if this verse does not specify 
the works as well as the words of Christ, the former were 
inseparably connected with the latter and are fairly in- 
cluded in the promise of John 16: 14, 15. (3) That the 

Spirit would show them “ things to come,” literally, 
“ the things to come.” This language assured them of 
prophetic inspiration, — of light through the Spirit as to 
future events in the reign of Christ. (4) That the Spirit 
“ would teach them all things ” or “ guide them into 
all the truth,” meaning, doubtless, all the truth concern- 
ing Christ and his redemptive work which properly be- 
longs to revealed religion. 

That these promises, as a whole, were meant for the 
Apostles only, we believe, 

a. Because they were addressed to them only. 

b. Because they assured them of suitable endowment 
for a special work. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 65 

c. Because history forbids us to suppose them to have 
been meant for all Christians. 

d. Yet it is doubtless true that some expressions in 
the promise of Jesus to the Eleven have been fulfilled to 
other Christians. See John 14:16; 16:8-11. And it 
is clear from John 7: 38, 39, and Acts 2: 17-21, that the 
work of the Holy Spirit was to be widely extended and 
powerful among believers in Christ, after his ascension 
to the right hand of God. But, guided by Paul’s dis- 
cussion of spiritual gifts, in 1 Cor. 12th, 13th, and 14th 
chapters we are satisfied that the spiritual or inspirational 
endowments of the Apostles were distinctly superior to 
those of other teachers, so that they were qualified by 
them to declare with authority the essential truths con- 
cerning Jesus Christ, his work, and his kingdom. (Com- 
pare John 20:22, 23; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14, with 
Matt. 16 : 17-19.) 

e. It is now to be observed that Paul was added to the 
original group of Apostles by the choice of Christ, and 
was, therefore, in need of the same kind of inspiration 
which was promised to them. See Rom. 1 : 1 ; 1 Cor. 
1:1; 9:1; Gal. 2:6-9; 1 Pet. 1 : 12 ; 2 Pet. 3 : 15, 16. 
Moreover, Paul himself and, by parity of reason, the 
other Apostles had a variety of gifts for their great and 
special ministry, 1 Cor. 14: 18, 19; Acts 2:4, 6, 7; 19:6; 
8:14-17; 2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Cor. 2:6 f. ; 3:10; 12:8; 
Acts 13:9-11; 14:3,8-10; 19 : 11, 12, etc. The Apostles 
seem to have been severally endowed with all the “ gifts ” 
possessed by any Christians of their time, in addition to 
some which thev alone received. 

f. This fulfillment of a comprehensive promise, by a 
variety of special gifts, answering to the wants of the 
churches, 1 Cor. 12 : 11 ; Heb. 2:4, is in accord with the 
idea of a progressive revelation, and with all we know 
of divine Providence. The homogeneous is differenti- 
ated ; the nebula is resolved into separate stars ; society 


66 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

advances by division of labor. So in the churches; all 
did not speak with tongues or prophesy ; not all were 
evangelists or apostles. But, for the sake of immutable 
foundations and good order, there were a few whose en- 
dowments qualified them to guide the rest; and these 
were the Apostles. 

g. It is now evident that the promise of “ the spirit 
of truth,” as made by Jesus to his Apostles, was intended 
primarily, and, at least in part, exclusively ; for them. It 
is not, in all its language, directly applicable to Christians 
of all times. But all Christians may have the full benefit 
of it mediately; for all may have the assistance of the 
Spirit in studying the inspired truth of Scripture. 

If we turn to the Teaching of the Apostles, in so far 
as it is preserved in the New Testament, it will be found 
to be, like that of their Master, in a high degree positive , 
spiritual , self-consistent , and practical , and we are con- 
vinced that it inculcates Christian truth without any 
tincture of error. Not, of course, the whole truth in the 
case of any one of them; for Paul speaks for all the 
Apostles when he says, “We know in part, and we 
prophesy in part ” ; but, none the less, truth that will 
never be superseded but only complemented, truth that 
was suited to the condition of those addressed and that 
will never cease to be precious. 

Objections to Inerrancy 

But objections have been made to the teaching of the 
Apostles, — objections which are said to prove that in- 
spiration did not preserve them from error. The most 
important of these objections must be named: 

i. That the Apostles may not have been always true to 
their convictions. Of this, however, there is no real 
evidence, unless it be found in Peter’s conduct at Antioch, 
Gal. 2: 11-13, or Paul’s language to the Sanhedrin, Acts 
23 : 3-5. But Peter’s error was one of private conduct, 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 67 

and Paul’s language was probably that of honest, scorn- 
ful indignation. 

2. That they taught contradictory doctrines , — a 
charge which is founded on a superficial and incorrect 
interpretation of their language. 

3. That they of ten misinterpreted passages of the Old 
T estament , — a statement which cannot, we think, be 
verified, though the prima facie import of certain pas- 
sages would seem to justify it. 

4. That they expected the final coming of Christ in 
their day. They did not teach that this coming would 
be in their day, and there is room for doubt whether they 
expected it so soon. They seem to have regarded that 
event as conditioned on others of uncertain date, Acts 
3:19-21; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; Rom. 11:25. 

5. They confessed their own ignorance and forget - 
fulness, 1 Cor. 1 : 14-16. This confession favors the 
view that when they wrote positively their knowledge 
was certain (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2, 3). 

6. That some writers were not Apostles. Again we 
are reminded that not all the New Testament was written 
by apostles. Yet (1) John Mark, who is credited with 
the authorship of the second Gospel, was associated 
closely at times with Barnabas, with Paul, and with 
Peter, Acts 15: 37, 39 i 2 Tim. 4: “5 1 Pet - 5 ^ 3 - 
Irenseus calls him the inter pres et sectator Petri (Haer. 
iii. 10:6). Tertullian calls him Peter’s inter pres (Con. 
Mar. iv. 5), and Eusebius (H. E. II. 15) represents the 
Roman Christians as soliciting Mark to put in writing the 
gospel as preached by Peter. With this the testimony 
of Papias substantially agrees, and the probability is very 
great that we have in the second Gospel the history of 
Christ’s ministry as Peter was accustomed to report it. 

(2) Luke, to whom the composition of the third 
Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles is attributed, was a 
companion of Paul during a part of his third missionary 


68 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

tour, his last visit to Jerusalem, his two years’ imprison- 
ment at Caesarea, his voyage to Rome, and some part of 
his double imprisonment there. He was also able, it 
may be presumed, to learn much of the history of Christ 
from other apostles. And he professes to have “ ac- 
curately followed all from the beginning, and to have 
written everything in order.” 

(3) The writers of the epistles of James and Jude 
were probably brothers of Jesus, converted to disciple- 
ship by his resurrection from the dead, and personally 
acquainted with several of the Twelve. 

(4) The Epistle to the Hebrews may have been writ- 
ten by the suggestion and with the approval of Paul by 
Luke or some other disciple. This would account for 
its being early ascribed to Paul himself. 

Plainly, all these writers were devout Christians, de- 
sirous above all things else of making known the truth 
in its purity. They would, therefore, if possible, have 
submitted their writings to the Apostles for correction, 
in case they had not been fully assured of their own 
inspiration. But many associates of the Apostles were 
inspired, Acts 2:17, 18 ; 1 1 : 27, 28 ; 21 : 9 ; 1 Cor. 11:4; 
14 : 24-32, and it is therefore reasonable to suppose that 
writers of New Testament books were thus qualified 
for their work. For oral teaching could not have been 
regarded as more sacred or important than written 
teaching. The latter must have been resorted to as 
likely to be more widely diffused and permanent than 
the former, especially in such cases as the Gospels, the 
Acts, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which must have 
been intended for wide circulation. 

Our fourth proposition is, That Jesus Christ, to- 
gether WITH HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES AND THEIR AS- 
SOCIATES, INDORSED THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES 

as from God. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 69 

I. These Scriptures existed in the time of Christ. To 
establish this proposition it must be shown that the Old 
Testament Scriptures existed in the time of Christ as a 
well-known collection of sacred writings ; for some of the 
books ^ found in the Old Testament are not referred to 
distinctively in the New Testament. It may, perhaps, 
be sufficient to state that competent scholars are now 
agreed in holding that our present Old Testament books 
were the accredited sacred writings of the Palestinian 
Jews in the time of Christ, and during the century and 
a half that preceded his advent. 1 

( 1 ) Words in the Preface to the “ Wisdonyof Jesus, the 
son of Sirach,” show that the Old Testament was divided 
into three parts before the time of Christ; namely, the 
Law, the Prophets, and the Rest of the Books, — a di- 
vision which was distinctly recognized by the risen Sa- 
viour, Luke 24 : 44. 

(2) Moreover, the words of Josephus in his work 
against Apion (cc. 7, 8) show that the Jews had books 
which they did not consider inspired or sacred; that 
prophetic origin or approval was esteemed necessary to 
render a book sacred ; that they did not venture to modify 
such a book in any way ; that the number of their sacred 
books was supposed to be complete ; and that none of 
them were written after the time of Artaxerxes. Their 
number was twenty-two, equalling the letters of the He- 

1 See Horne (T. H.), “Introduction to the Critical Study and 
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” last edition; Keil (C. F.), 
“ Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical 
Scriptures of the Old Testament”; Bleek (F.), “Introduction to 
the Old Testament”; De Wette (W. M. L.),-“ Introduction to 
the Books of the Old Testament”; Bissell (C. C.), “The Canon 
of the Old Testament” in Bib. Sac. 1880; Ryle (H. E.), “The 
Canon of the Old Testament”; Driver (S. R.), “An Introduc- 
tion to the Literature of the Old Testament”; and the principal 
articles on' the Old Testament Canon in the great Dictionaries 
and Encyclopaedias of the Bible. 


70 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


brew alphabet, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num- 
bers, Deuteronomy, — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Daniel, 
Ezra, Chronicles, Esther, — Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ec- 
clesiastes, Canticles. Ruth was included in Judges, Lam- 
entations in Jeremiah, and Nehemiah in Ezra. £)rigen 
and Jerome follow Josephus. 

(3) But “ it is admitted 1 2 that there was a controversy 
in the Jewish Rabbinical schools of the first century 
after Christ concerning three books, — Esther, Ecclesi- 
astes, and the Song of Songs, — and, to a limited extent, 
concerning a fourth, viz., Proverbs, whether they had 
been admitted to the Canon on sufficient or on insuf- 
ficient grounds,” in other words, whether they ought to 
be excluded from the Canon, or retained in it. They 
were, however, retained, doubtless because a majority 
of Jewish teachers believed them to be worthy of a place 
in the canon of sacred writings. 

2. How Jesus and the New Testament writers used 
them. (1) As examples of the use which Jesus made 
of the Old Testament we may study the follow- 
ing passages: Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56; Luke 
4:21; 24:46; John 5:39; 7:38; 10:35; 13:18; 

17:12; Matt. 5:17-19; 7:12; 22:36-40; Luke 16:17; 
24:44; 11:49.2 

(2) As examples from the words of Peter, Acts 1:16, 
20; 2: 16 f., 23, 25, 30, 31; 3: 18, 21-26; 4:25; 10:43; 
1 Pet. 1:10-12, 16, 24, 25; 2:6-8; 3:6, 10-12, 14, 20; 
4:18; 2 Pet. 1 : 19-21 ; 2:16; 3:2. 

(3) The words of John, 1: 17; 12: 14 f. ; 19:24, 36. 

(4) The words of Paul, his view of the Mosaic law. 
Rom. 7: 7-12; Gal. 3: 23, 24; his view of ancient proph 

1 See Bissell in Bib. Sac. 1886, p. 91.. 

2 See Lechler (D. G. V.), “The Old Testament in the Dis- 
courses of Jesus,” “Christian Review,” vol. 24, pp. 368-390; 543- 
574 - 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE Jl 

ecy, Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:25; 12:20 f.; and his view of 
sacred history, Gal. 4:21-31; 1 Cor. 10:1-6. His view 
of the entire Old Testament may be seen in 2 Tim. 3 : 14- 
1 7 ’ 1 The thirteen Epistles of Paul contain more than 
one hundred and twenty-five citations from the Old 
Testament, taken from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num- 
bers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Job, 
Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, 
Joel, Habakkuk, and Malachi. And the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, written by Paul or by some one who had im- 
bibed his doctrine, has fifty-three quotations from the 
same volume. 

Richard Rothe affirms that all the writers of the New 
Testament, whether Apostles or not, “ consider the words 
of the Old Testament, direct words of God, and quote 
them as such. They see nothing in the Holy Book 
which is merely the word of its human author, and not 
at the same time God’s word.” 2 This statement may 
need some qualification, but it represents fairly the gen- 
eral view of New Testament writers. They evidently 
believed that moral and religious influence, by means 
of truth, emanated from the sacred writings, and that 
these “ writings were able to make men wise unto salva- 
tion through faith, which is in Christ Jesus.” 

3. From this survey of facts we conclude that no one 
is justified in accepting the New Testament as God's 
zvord , without accepting the Old Testament also as 
equally God's word , — not, however, as an equally clear 
or full or useful revelation of the mind of God to men 
of the present age, but as no less truly a revelation from 
God, and one that was adapted to the mental and re- 
ligious condition of those to whom it was first given. 
In vet ere Testamento Novum latet, in Novo Testamento 
vetus patet. The two revelations belong to one system. 

1 See “ Studies in Ethics and Religion,” p. 178 f. 

2 Dogmatik, p. 180. 


72 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


They differ as twilight differs from sunlight, both re- 
vealing the same source but with different degrees of 
clearness. The clouds were thick and almost continuous 
over the sky of the earlier revelation, and the light broke 
through at comparatively few points, while over the sky 
of the later revelation are but thin and scattered clouds 
which do little to intercept the shining rays of the sun of 
righteousness. In other words, the thoughts and speech 
of the Israelites in the period of the earlier dispensation 
were less perfect media for revealing God to men than 
were those of the time of Christ. In still other words, the 
earlier and obscurer disclosures of God’s will gradually 
clarified the thoughts and speech of the people, and 
made it possible for God to improve his revelation of 
himself to them. 1 All this is perfectly consistent with 
the indorsement of the Old Testament as a revelation 
from God by Jesus Christ and his inspired Apostles — a 
revelation in forms of speech which are to be interpreted 
fairly, and their religious teaching accepted as an in- 
cipient and preparatory foreshadowing of truth that 
would be fully declared when men were able to re- 
ceive it. 

4. But the credit due to the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures as a revelation of God does not rest solely on the 
words of Christ and his Apostles. Their character as 
historical records is in some respects very high. 

(1) They are distinguished for the impartiality with 
which they record the faults and sins and disasters of 
the chosen people or of its heroes. A divine conscience 
seems to hold their writers to the strict line of honest 
biography and history. If they contain errors, these 
errors are not intentional. No one can read the nar- 
ratives concerning Abraham, Jacob, David, and Jeremiah, 
without feeling that those who wrote them intended to 
be veracious. 

1 Comp. “The Sacred Writings,” in “Studies in Ethics and 
Religion,” pp. 90-107. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 73 

(2) They are remarkable for the accuracy of their 
references to places in the Holy Land and adjacent 
countries. Modern discoveries have confirmed the truth 
of the Old Testament books in this respect so often that 
they are looked upon as authorities which it is rash to 
dispute. 

(3) The same may be said of their allusions to life 
and conduct among the ancient Israelites, Syrians, Phoe- 
nicians, Egyptians, Arabians, and other Oriental peoples. 
They are at home in the realm of nature and custom, but 
not in that of fiction. All this is fitted to inspire con- 
fidence in their words. 

(4) Turning from history to prophecy it will be found 
that many predictions of the Old Testament have been 
fulfilled. This fact may have been overworked as a 
proof of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. But 
it cannot be ruled out of court, or pronounced of slight 
value. The predictions respecting Babylon, Nineveh, 
Jerusalem, the Jewish nation, and the Messiah, together 
with their fulfillment, as described by sacred or profane 
historians, afford evidence that their authors were en- 
lightened by the Spirit of God. Against this it is urged 
that some biblical predictions have not been fulfilled, 
though the time of their fulfillment has passed. Hence 
it is thought that those which have been fulfilled were no 
more than happy guesses. 

But two things may be said in answer to this reason- 
ing: a. that predictions were very often conditional. 
The evil foretold would come to pass unless the con- 
ditions calling for it were removed, or the blessing fore- 
told would be imparted unless it was forfeited by sin- 
fulness, Jonah 3:10; 4:2; Jer. 18:7-10. And b. that 
predictions were frequently couched in highly figurative 
language. When this was the case, their real fulfillment 
is not always recognized. Most of the Jews in our Sa- 
viour’s time did not recognize in him the fulfillment of 


74 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


any Messianic prophecies. Yet they were fulfilled, 
nevertheless, in a most surprising manner. 

(5) Again, the prophets are distinctly represented as 
being called to their work by God himself, — a call 
which they often accepted with great reluctance and self- 
distrust. Moses, Ex. 3: 1 1-4: 17; Isa. 6: 5-8; Jer. 1 : 5- 
10; Eze. 1:1-2:10.. Moreover, “scattered all through 
the prophetic writings are expressions which speak of 
some strong and irresistible impulse coming down on the 
prophet, determining his attitude to the events of his 
time, constraining his utterance, making his words a 
vehicle of a higher meaning than his own.” 1 The proph- 
ets, as well as the Apostles, were eminently sane men, 
and it is evident that they steadfastly claim to deliver 
specific messages from Jehovah, — messages imparted to 
them in such a way that they could not hesitate as to 
their divine origin. 

(6) Finally, the religious teaching of the Old Testa- 
ment, when compared with that of other sacred books 
of as early date, is preeminent for its purity and power. 
The law which is said to have been given by Moses, the 
Psalms, the writings of Isaiah, and of the other prophets, 
possess extraordinary qualities, commending them to the 
reason, the moral intuitions, and the religious nature 
of man. And, in the language of another, “ it is proper 
for us to remember, that what we call criticism is not 
the only valid test of the genuineness and worth of any 
piece of writing of great practical interest to mankind : 
there is, in addition, the test of actual use and service, in 
direct contact with the common sense and the moral 
sense of large masses of men, under various conditions, 
and for a long period. Probably no writing which is 

1 W. Sanday. See, as illustrations of this, Isa. 8:11; Jer. 
15: 17; Eze. 3:14; 8:1 ff. ; and cf. Deut. 18: 18-20; Hovey (A.), 
“Studies in Ethics and Religion,” p. 151 f. ; Sanday (W.), “The 
Oracles of God,” p. 48 f. 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 75 

not essentially sound and true has ever survived this 
test.” 1 

(7) The facts which have been adduced distinguish 
the Holy Scriptures from all other books, and give to 
their teaching a unique and divine authority, — an au- 
thority which, apart from errors in the text, is equal to 
that of oral instruction by prophets or apostles. They 
are not mere ordinary records of divinely guided events ; 
they are records of messages and events , made or adopted 
by men under the impulse and guidance of the Spirit of 
Truth. 

This is our provisional account of the Holy Scriptures 
as inspired writings. If, as we are sometimes told, the 
whole history of Israel was inspired, surely the teaching 
of prophets which did so much to shape that history 
was inspired, and if the prophets were inspired to receive 
and deliver their messages in the first instance, how can 
we hesitate to believe that they were equally inspired to 
put them in writing for the permanent instruction of the 
people? Only in the case of Christ can we suppose that 
the events recorded were more perfectly controlled by 
the Spirit of God than was the work of recording them ; 
and, even in this case, our only means of knowing those 
events is the record which the evangelists made, with 
the help of the Spirit. 

Of course, our provisional account of the Holy Scrip- 
tures as inspired writings needs more or less explanation. 
It must be interpreted in harmony with the view, that 
the mind of God was gradually revealed to men and com- 
mitted to writing, Heb. i : I ; that it was expressed by 
words and figures of speech which were, as a rule, intel- 
ligible to the people first addressed; and that the object 
sought with unswerving consistency was religious not 
scientific: the spiritual renovation of men, not their in- 

1 j P rof. Moses Coit Tyler, in “North Am. Rev.,” July, 1896, 
P- 15 . 


7 6 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


struction in literature or art; their restoration to fellow- 
ship with God, and not their acquaintance with physical 
law. These facts must be kept in mind when we speak 
of the teaching of Scripture as being in deepest reality 
God’s word, and thus the standard of Christian truth and 
duty. 

Mode of Inspiration 

It is now desirable to ascertain, as far as possible, the 
effect of inspiration on those who were inspired, and, 
through them, on their teaching. Many theories have 
been proposed concerning this effect, four of which are 
worthy of special consideration, and these four may be 
characterized, respectively, as verbal, dynamical, religious 
dynamical, and gracious inspiration. 

The first theory assumes that the Spirit of God sug- 
gested the words as well as the ideas of the sacred books 
to their writers; the second , that the Spirit of God so 
pervaded and energized the mental powers of the sacred 
writers as to make their whole work divine-human ; the 
third, that this action of the Spirit ensured the possession 
and expression of pure religious truth by those writers, 
while all other knowledge was gained and used by their 
unassisted natural powers; and the fourth, that all re- 
newed men have the same kind of inspiration — viz., 
the action of the Holy Spirit in their minds — which 
serves to make their religious teaching pure and true in 
proportion to their personal holiness. 

i. In support of plenary verbal inspiration 1 the follow- 

1 Haldane (R.), “The Books of the Old and New Testaments 
Proved to be Canonical, and Their Verbal Inspiration Maintained 
and Established”; Carson (A.), “The Theories of Inspiration 
of the Rev. Daniel Wilson, Rev. Dr. Pye Smith, and the Rev. 
Dr. Dick proved to be Erroneous”; Gaussen (I. R. L.), “ Theop- 
neusty; or, the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures”; 
Bannerman (J.), “Inspiration; the Infallible Truth and Divine 
Authority of the Holy Scriptures”; Smith (J. P.), “How God 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 77 

ing points have been made : ( i ) It is required by the ob- 
ject of inspiration, namely, the conveyance of religious 
truth to mankind. For thought and language are in- 
separable; in teaching, correct expression is just as 
necessary as correct knowledge. (2) It is implied in the 
occasional use of language by the sacred writers which 
they did not understand. “ They builded better than 
they knew.” They sometimes spoke with a tongue which 
they had not learned, and which needed interpretation by 
another, 1 Cor. 14:28. (3) It is strongly suggested by 

the words, “ thus saith the Lord,” with which they so 
often preface their messages. (4) It is favored by the 
words of Paul in 2 Tim. 2: 16, which recognize Scrip- 
ture itself as theopneustic or God-inspired. But Scrip- 
ture is merely God’s word, written instead of spoken, 
and the inspiration must relate to the word which is 
written rather than to the act of writing, the penman- 
ship. 

Objections to plenary verbal inspiration considered. 

The theory of plenary verbal inspiration has been op- 
posed on the ground, ( 1 ) That it does not account for the 
varieties of style which distinguish the biblical writers. 
The style of Paul differs from that of John, the style of 
Isaiah from that of Ezekiel, the style of Hosea from that 
of Joel, and so on. Every writer differs in this respect 
from every other. Yet this objection is not conclusive, 
for the Spirit of inspiration may have suggested to each 
writer such words and idoms, and such only, as the 
writer was accustomed to use. It would have been as 
easy for the Spirit to do this as to suggest Greek words 
to a Greek or Hebrew words to a Hebrew. Yet the more 

Inspired the Bible”; Elliott (C.), “Inspiration of the Holy 
Scriptures”; Horton (R. F.), “Inspiration of the Bible”; 
Smeaton (G.), “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” Lect. III. 


78 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


obvious explanation is that every writer freely chose 
the words which he employed. 

(2) That it scarcely agrees with the emotional and 
even passionate language sometimes used by biblical 
writers. Expressions of fear or despair, of anger or 
bitterness, of jealousy or revenge, are occasionally met 
with which do not seem to be naturally due to action of 
the Holy Spirit. To suppose that a record of such feel- 
ings was dictated by the Spirit of God, after they had 
passed away from the writer’s soul, is less satisfactory 
than to suppose that they were expressed with rapid pen 
while still throbbing in his spirit. 

(3) That it seems to belittle the work of prophets and 
apostles in teaching the will of God. It represents them 
as instruments rather than intelligent agents, as men pos- 
sessed and controlled by the Spirit of God, but contribut- 
ing little or nothing to the work by their own activity. 
It often exhibits inspired men as speaking and writing in 
a state of ecstasy, scarcely knowing what they do. But 
we may safely assume that God never interferes with 
the moral agency of his servants. The supernatural 
does not supersede the natural, nor the mechanical the 
vital, in his reign of grace. 

2. The second theory, that of plenary dynamical in- 
spiration, 1 supposes that the Spirit of God invigorated the 
spiritual powers of men who were called to receive and 
teach divine truth. It was an influence which empowered 
the soul to see and announce the thoughts of God. It 
moved, but did not compel the prophet or apostle to teach 
what had been revealed to him. It affected the person 

1 See Lee (W.), “The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; 
its Nature and Proof”; Row (C. A.), “The Nature and Extent 
of Divine Inspiration, as stated by the Writers and deduced from 
the Facts of the New Testament”; Cave (A.), “The Inspiration 
of the Old Testament Inductively Considered”; Warington (G.), 
“The Inspiration of Scripture; Its Limits and Effects.” 


GOD, IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 79 

inspired directly, and his work indirectly. Several argu- 
ments are alleged in support of this theory. 

(1) It conceives of inspiration as a moral process, an 
influence of Spirit upon spirit. The mechanical aspect 
of the first theory nowhere appears. The man of God 
is stimulated, encouraged ; all his spiritual capacities are 
set at work, — reason, conscience, sensibility, and will. 
The qualities of his character, the pecularities of his 
discipline and experience, his temperament, his energv, 
all appear in his work, yet under the influence of tfie 
divine Spirit. 

(2) It accords with a broad and correct view of the 
purpose of revelation, viz., that it was given to restore 
men to fellowship with God, and not merely to instruct 
them in morals and religion. Hence it appeals to their 
hopes, their fears, their sense of moral obligation, their 
gratitude for love and kindness, their sympathy with high 
ideals, that they may be moved to enter on a new life; 
hence, too, its abounding and affecting utterances of 
religious feeling, its penitential psalms, its grateful and 
exulting songs. The letters of Paul, for example, are 
alive with Christian experience, and aglow with spiritual 
hope and love. It is not cold accuracy or the dry light of 
reason that is needed to overcome the selfishness of the 
human heart, but the testimony of life and love; it is 
God speaking to men of his holiness and grace as these 
are shed abroad in the hearts of his children, and fervent- 
ly expressed by their words. This is provided for by the 
dynamical theory of inspiration. 

(3) It allows us to hold that an inspired writer could 
appropriate, and, by so doing, ratify the words of -an 
ordinary annalist. The original authorship of any para- 
graph, chapter, or book is of no consequence, provided it 
has been approved by a mind thus inspired. The author- 
ity of Scripture does not depend on its origin, but on its 
character. It is therefore immaterial, how freely the 


8o 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


author of i and 2 Kings adopted the language of his 
sources, or how much of his Gospel Luke borrowed 
from written narratives that have since perished. 

(4) It lends itself readily to a convenient distinction 
between inspiration and revelation : inspiration being 
applied to the work of the Spirit in qualifying a prophet 
or apostle to apprehend and declare the truth which is 
given him by revelation. The works of nature or the 
ministry of Jesus Christ may be a revelation of divine truth 
to one who is empowered to receive it by inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit. This distinction is favorable to clear- 
ness of thought, especially when we compare the teach- 
ing of Christ, by which truth was brought to the minds 
of his disciples, with the work of the Spirit enabling 
them to recall that teaching and convey it to others. 

But the second theory as now stated, that of plenary 
dynamical inspiration, assumes that the secular history of 
the Bible is as truthworthy as its religious teaching ; or in 
other words, that the sacred writers meant to teach 
secular history as truly and in the same sense as they 
meant to teach the relation of God to men and of men to 
God. This theory, however, is believed by many to be 
inconsistent with the character of the sacred writings and 
the claims of their writers. For those writings are said 
to contain many historical and possibly scientific errors, 
while they claim to teach nothing but moral and religious 
ti uth. 

3. Hence the theory of religious dynamical inspiration, 
which supposes that chosen men were empowered by the 
inbreathing and influence of the Holy Spirit to apprehend 
and teach religious truth without error. 

In support of this theory it is said, 

(1) That a careful study of the Scriptures warrants 
the assertion that the purpose of every book of the Bible 
is really religious. It is the relations between God and 
man that these books aim to reveal and emphasize. The 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 8 1 

relations of man to man are treated as of secondary im- 
portance. No attempt is made to chronicle discoveries 
or inventions, to point out the human causes of national 
order and prosperity, or to illustrate the progress of lit- 
erature and knowledge. Changes are noted because the 
hand of God is seen in them. Calamities are traced to 
his displeasure with the people, and his displeasure with 
the people is traced to their sins. The law is sacred, be- 
cause it was given by Jehovah . 1 The problems discussed, 
the questions answered, are essentially religious, — not 
scientific, or governmental, or historical. 

The only books which appear to have a less definite 
religious aim are Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, 
according to the prevalent modern interpretation, and 
parts of Proverbs. No other book of the Old Testament 
can be added to this list, unless it be Ruth, and it is easy 
to discover a religious purpose and lesson in that beauti- 
ful story. The same is true, to some extent, of Eccle- 
siastes. And in every book of the New Testament the 
religious element is pervasive and dominant. 

(2) An examination of the biblical passages relating 
to inspiration leads to the belief that it was an endow- 
ment to qualify men for the work of religious teaching. 
When Jesus promised his Apostles the Spirit of truth, 
he defined the work of that Spirit as embracing the fol- 
lowing particulars: bringing to their remembrance the 
words of Christ, taking from Christ and imparting to 
them the things of Christ, revealing to them the things 
to come, guiding them into all the truth, and assisting 
them to speak wisely for themselves and for him before 
unfriendly tribunals. Every item in this promise relates 
to the Kingdom of God. “ The things to come ” are 
evidently things pertaining to that Kingdom. “ All the 
truth ” means Christian truth, without any reference to 
natural science or secular history. Jesus came into the 
1 See Psalms 1, 19, 119. 


82 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


world to seek and to save that which was lost, and the 
Holy Spirit was promised to carry on his work. No 
other view of the promise is exegetically defensible. 

The same limit to the scope of inspiration is to be 
found in Paul’s language, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; “Every 
Scripture [being] inspired by God, is also profitable for 
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which 
is in righteousness ; that the man of God may be com- 
plete, furnished completely unto every good work.” For 
obviously the designation, “ man of God,” here signifies 
a religious teacher, like Timothy, and more definitely 
still a preacher of the Gospel. 

Hence, too, the expression, “ every good work,” must 
mean everything which a faithful preacher of the Gospel 
was called to do in accomplishing his ministry. It does 
not affirm that the Old Testament Scriptures were par- 
ticularly useful in fitting men to be Roman consuls or 
generals or lawyers. Such kinds of work were not in 
the writer’s mind. 

A study of other passages would not modify the con- 
clusion which we draw from these. There is probably 
no statement of Scripture concerning prophets, apostles, 
or sacred writers, which, fairly interpreted, implies that 
they were inspired in order to qualify them for any kind 
of teaching which did not pertain to religion. Compare 
Rom. 2 : 18, 20 ; 3 : 2, 19, 21 ; 7 : 12 ; 9 : 4 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 10-12, 
23; 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:2, 13; Heb. 2:2, 6, 8; 
10: 1 ; 11 : 

If now the purpose of inspiration may be used by us 
to define the sphere of illumination in the mind of man 
by the Ploly Spirit, it will be right for us to take account 
of this in our judgment as to the inerrancy of Scripture. 
For if it is possible to show that there are narratives or 
other statements in the Bible which can be discriminated 
from its religious teaching, and the accuracy or inac- 
curacy of which would not affect the character of that 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 83 

teaching, this should be considered when we predicate 
infallibility of the Word of God. Dynamical inspira- 
tion is not of ^necessity plenary inspiration. And it is 
perhaps almost as dangerous to piety to overestimate the 
divine, as it is to overestimate the human quality of the 
sacred record. This will appear when we undertake to 
answer the objections to the alleged inerrancy of Scrip- 
ture in all its statements. Some of these objections will 
predispose us to look with favor on the theory of relig- 
ious inspiration, that is, inspiration so far as religious 
teaching is concerned. 

4. But there are many scholars at the present time 
who prefer the fourth theory that of gracious inspiration, 
which asserts that all renewed men are inspired in the 
same way and for the same purpose, having through the 
influence of the Holy Spirit a knowledge of Christian 
truth in exact proportion to their personal sanctification. 
The effect of this theory is not to raise the authority of 
all pious men as teachers of Christian truth, but to lower 
the authority of Apostles and sacred writers. It levels 
downward rather than upward. But it is defended by 
the following arguments: (i) That the same Spirit 
dwells and works in the hearts of all Christians, i Cor. 
3:16, and it is presumable that he works after the same 
manner in all. If so, that working includes spiritual 
illumination, Eph. 5 : 8, and doubtless in proportion to 
inward holiness. (2) That the prediction of Joel and 
the promise of Christ refer to all true believers, Joel 
2:28-32; Acts 2:15-21; John 4:14; 395 1 J ohn 

2 : 20. 

There is a measure of truth in this interpretation of 
the passages referred to, and the presence and influence 
of the Holy Spirit in all Christians may not improperly 
be called inspiration. Yet the word has been long used 
to signify a special charism, or work of the Holy Spirit, 
empowering men +0 receive and communicate religious 


8 4 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


truth with authority, and there is nothing in the passages 
quoted to show that the same kind of gifts were imparted 
to all. Some of the passages, indeed, suggest a variety 
of gifts. That there was a variety is clearly asserted by 
the Apostle Paul, I Cor. 12:5-11, 28-31. Especially 
does he enlarge upon the gift of tongues as differing 
from that of prophecy, and inferior to it, 1 Cor. 14: 1-25. 
Dorner treats this subject ably: 

“ We do not give the name of inspired men in the stricter 
sense to those who are made partakers of internal revelation 
in the Spirit of God merely by the mediation of others. . . . 
They who receive a revelation through a primordial act on 
God’s part, . . . above all, the men, who by revelation mark 
a new stage in religion, — such as Abraham, Moses, Elijah, 
the prophets, and the Apostles, — stand in a unique position. 
For only then is revelation really given to humanity, and 
therefore made historical fact, when a pure, unerring knowl- 
edge of it is imparted to those to whom it is first made, 
and on whose pure announcement its continuance depends.” 

Dr. Alfred Cave in his “ Inspiration of the Old Testa- 
ment ” (pp. 418, 419) remarks: 

“ The Books of the Law, as has been seen, present us with 
a record of the progress of Divine revelation from Adam to 
Moses; the Books of the Prophets, again, present us with a 
record of Divine revelation from Moses to Malachi j whereas 
the Holy Writings (Hagiographa) present us with a record 
not of revelation, but of the assimilation of revelation . . . . 
Just because these books do not confront us with objective 
revelation they are invaluable. Their preciousness, their 
pricelessness, lies in their subjective qualities. These books 
mirror life in God. They rather reflect man as influenced 
by what he knows of Deity than God as moved by what He 
knows of man.” 

This is suggestive, showing that inspiration is not 
restricted to those who are bearers of revelation. But 
Dr. Cave carries analysis too far when he distinguishes 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 85 

between Hagiographic inspiration, Prophetic inspiration, 
Transcriptive inspiration, and Canonic inspiration . 1 

Notwithstanding the acceptance which the last theory 
finds among the thoughtful men who shrink from every- 
thing which cannot be Aerified by present experience, we 
are compelled to reject it, as irreconcilable with the 
whole tenor of Scripture, and especially with the un- 
ambiguous teaching of Paul in his first Epistle to the 
Corinthians. A careful study of the facts appears to us 
to warrant the following statement : 2 

The sacred Scriptures , rightly interpreted from 
beginning to end as the record of a progressive reve- 
lation of God to man , of man to himself , and of spiritual 
life to all who will accept it, will lead to truth without 
error, and will justify that revelation as one that gave to 
those addressed by it, in each particular age, the religious 
truth most needed by them, in the best available form for 
reaching the heart and purifying the life .” 2 

Such a record can be accounted for only by supposing 
that those who made it were under the quickening and 
guiding influence of God’s spirit, which kept them from 
error in their religious teaching, and enabled them to de- 
clare the truth with persuasive speech. 

In view of what has been stated, we claim that the 
dynamic theory of inspiration within the sphere of relig- 
ious teaching accounts for all the phenomena of the 
Bible better than any other — for its varieties of style and 
methods in teaching, for its verbal discrepancies and 
essential harmony, for the personal feelings and tastes 
revealed in its language, and for a thousand indications 
of free spiritual action on the part of its writers. How 
any one can read the New Testament, the Book of Rev- 
elation excepted, and doubt whether its writers speak 

1 Lecture VIII., pp. 417-455* 

2 “ Studies in Ethics and Religion,” p. 212. 


86 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


with conscious freedom, and also with conscious author- 
ity, passes our comprehension. The letters of Paul are 
intensely natural and equally supernatural: the Word 
was made flesh without losing its heavenly truth and 
power. 

Objections answered 

But objections worthy of notice have been pressed 
against this view of the Bible. 

1. That a belief in the supreme authority of the Bible 
in matters of religion leads to bibliolatry. 

This must be an error, for the student of nature 
believes her teaching to be infallible, but is not led by this 
belief to pay religious homage to nature. In like manner, 
those who accept the teaching of the Bible as strictly true 
and final, are led by that very teaching to worship God 
only. It is doubtless true that certain men are predis- 
posed to a feeling of reverence for persons and places and 
objects connected with religion. Their church, their pas- 
tor, their Bible, their prayer book, the pulpit, the elements 
of the holy supper, water from the Jordan, the cross, and 
other material things are treated as sacred. But the 
higher one puts the authority of the Bible as a revelation 
from God, the more steadfastly must he refuse to wor- 
ship anything but God, looking upon the Scriptures, as he 
does upon nature, as only a mirror revealing to him the 
sole object of worship. 

2. That this belief concerning the Bible retards the 
progress of science. Men are rendered by it suspicious 
of the discoveries of science, and hostile to new views of 
nature or of man. 

There is without doubt plausible evidence of this 
charge. Believers in the truth of Scripture are slow to 
receive scientific theories which appear to be inconsistent 
with what they suppose the Bible teaches. But they are 
friends of knowledge, interested in studying the works of 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 87 

God in nature, and founders as well as patrons of the 
highest schools of learning. Elaborate treatises have 
been written to prove that Christian theology, and indeed 
a belief in the supernatural, is sternly antagonistic to the 
free ways of science and the successful search for truth ; 
but anything can be proved by culling facts and using 
them for a purpose, and we think that these volumes are 
examples of both processes. At all events, the natural 
sciences flourish best in Christian nations, and true reli- 
gion stimulates study of the works of God. 

It may, however, be granted that a misapprehension of 
what the Bible was given to teach, or a misinterpretation 
of some of its language, has sometimes led to needless 
controversy between scientists and theologians. But this 
controversy has more than once been provoked by the 
rash hypotheses or anti-Christian spirit of naturalists, 
and in the end it has probably been of service to biblical 
interpretation and to natural science as well. 1 

3. That this belief concerning the Bible requires us to 
suppose that all copies , -translations , and even interpreta- 
tions of its religious teaching should be inspired and iner- 
rant. For otherwise, it is said, the benefit of inerrancy 
would be lost to all but the primitive readers. 

We cannot see the force of this objection. For errors 
arising from transcription, translation, or interpretation 
can be detected by patient scrutiny, and then reduced to 
a minimum , or wholly removed ; but errors in the orig- 
inal text could neither be measured nor corrected. This 
will be evident, upon reflection, to every one who is 
familiar with the processes of textual criticism. 

Suppose a prescription for a fatal disease, made by 
the only physician who understood the disease and its 
remedy, were taken down by his servant under his eyes, 
but, after his death, which soon occurred, were tran- 

1 Draper (W.), “History of the Conflict between Religion 
and Science”; White (A. D)., “The Warfare of Science.” 


88 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


scribed by many others, until the copies differed more or 
less from one another, — would any person say that 
errors in the copies would be as damaging to confidence 
as errors in the original? By comparing the different 
copies, it would be possible to restore the original. But 
if there had been errors in that, how could they be dis- 
covered or corrected? 

At the same time it must be admitted that minor errors 
in the original prescription might not render it absolutely 
worthless. Errors, e. g., in respect to the date of the 
first use of the medicine, if that were mentioned, or in 
resp'ect to the exact weight of the less important ingre- 
dients, or in respect to the frequency with which the spe- 
cific should be administered, might exist without destroy- 
ing the virtue of the remedy. In like manner, no one can 
say that a tincture of error in the religious teaching of 
prophets and apostles would have rendered inefficient all 
the truth which they proclaimed. But if we had no tests 
by which to determine the comparative amount of error 
and the nature of its action along with the truth, our con- 
fidence in biblical teaching would be shaken, if not de- 
stroyed. We should feel the need of some higher 
standard in ourselves, some Christian consciousness that 
might be trusted to guide us in separating the precious 
from the vile. Have we this? How can we know that 
we have it? 

4. That the Bible has much obscure language , — much 
that is hard to be understood. But the object of a super- 
natural revelation must be to make known important 
truth ; and, therefore, words will be used, not to hide, but 
to express thought so that we have a right to expect 
the clearest language possible. 

This objection is plausible, but without convincing 
force. (1) For, in the first place, the supreme object 
of revelation is to bring men into loving union with God. 
Truth must therefore be revealed in such a way as to 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 89 

arouse their attention and move their hearts. The man- 
ner of making it known is accordingly of highest impor- 
tance. Account must be taken in this of the whole spir- 
itual condition of mankind, especially of the people first 
addressed. 

(2) In the second place, the Scriptures are admirably 
fitted to fix and hold the attention of men, in their fallen 
state, on religious truth. This is shown by their his- 
tory. It may also be accounted for by their contents. 
For truth as recorded in the Bible was made known 
from time to time in fragments, here a little and there a 
little, as prophets and the people were able to receive it. 
It appeared as stars in a cloudy night. To be sure the 
knowledge of prophets must have been in advance not 
only of the spiritual state of the world outside of them, 
but also of their own moral and religious experience but 
not too far in advance. There must be reception as well 
as communication. The divine message must be adapted 
to the human organ. So we have fragments of history, 
of biography, and of doctrine, — clarity set in obscurity, 
the best possible revelation for men as they were. 

(3) Hence, in the third place, the revelation was orig- 
inally progressive, and the record of it, if historical, must 
be progressive also. Such it is in fact; its method is 
educational, full of life and hope, exciting curiosity, re- 
warding inquiry like the book of nature, and preparing 
men to appreciate truth by inducing them to search for 
it. Sacred history and biography from Moses to Herod, 
from Adam to Jesus Christ, illustrate this method and 
process. And the disclosure of purely religious truth 
follows the same course. But this course involves ob- 
scurity, knowing in part, and perpetual effort to com- 
prehend the past and foresee the future. 

(4) There is, besides, a transcendent element in the 

Bible. As a religious book it is concerned with the re- 

# 

1 See Dorner, II., p. 195. 


90 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

lations of God to man, of the Unseen and Infinite to the 
seen and finite. Extraordinary events must be de- 
scribed in ordinary language, and put before the mind in 
connection with ordinary events. The realities of 
spiritual life must be expressed in terms of natural life. 
Hence figurative language will pervade the record, and 
the figures employed will be those most intelligible and 
impressive to the men who from time to time receive the 
revelation and deliver it to the people. But that which 
is the most luminous symbolism for truth in one age 
may be darker to another. More or less of obscurity 
will be inevitable in speaking of the movements of an 
Infinite Spirit in the realm of finite beings, but that 
obscurity will be increased when the language of an early 
people is the vehicle of instruction and appeal to another 
and far later people. 

(5) Here, too, must we place our vindication of the 
use of parables, allegories, fables and, if they occur, myth- 
ical representations of great crises in human history. 
So unreasonable a view of the presence of myths in the 
Bible has been advocated by certain rationalistic critics, 
that we are possibly in danger of denying the service 
which they might be made to render by the Spirit of God 
in impressing upon minds at a certain stage of culture 
essential truth. We believe they are used very rarely, 
if at all, by the sacred writers, but we cannot, on general 
principles, deny that they might be safely used. The same 
may be said of almost every species of literature. Hyper- 
bole and irony are not uncommon to some parts of the 
Bible. Every honest method of appealing to taste, im- 
agination, curiosity, fear, hope, conscience, reverence, is 
resorted to for the purpose of saving men from sin and 
death. 

(6) At the same time it is always to be remembered 
that the necessity of searching for hidden treasures pre- 
pares the mind to appreciate the treasures when found. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 9 1 

It is well that there is no easy road to knowledge, for, 
if there were, knowledge would soon be despised. Par- 
ables are sometimes better than demonstration, Luke 
8:10 and parallel texts. Even fables may be a vehicle 
of truth, Judges 9: 8-16. 

5. That the Scriptures sometimes use unsound argu- 
ments, a fact which is inconsistent with their religious 
inspiration. The leading ideas of Christianity may have 
been revealed to the sacred writers, it is said, but the 
subordinate ideas and the arguments employed must have 
been the fruit of their unaided reason, and therefore in 
no true sense from God. This is applicable even to the 
words of Jesus, as reported by the evangelists, and still 
more to the words of Paul, Matt. 22 : 29-33 ; Luke 20 : 
34-38; Gal. 3:16. 

( 1 ) On the contrary, we believe that neither Christ 
nor his Apostles can be shown to have argued sophis- 
tically. They may not indeed have always stated 
their argument fully; few men do that in actual life. 
It is enough for them to suggest one or more of the 
premises; their hearers do the rest. This is, no doubt, 
the explanation of Christ’s reply to the Sadducees. The 
root of their unbelief was their denial of a future life, 
and they seized upon the doctrine of the resurrection as 
the most vulnerable article in the Pharisaic doctrine of 
a future life. Jesus, perceiving their animus , corrected 
in the first place their error in respect to the nature of the 
resurrection body and life. The family relations of time 
are not to be continued in eternity. Marrying and giv- 
ing in marriage, birth and death, will cease in the coming 
aeon. So far all is clear. There is no trace of Rabbinic 
sophistry. But the Saviour next turns the tables upon 
his critics by appealing to a passage in the Pentateuch for 
proof of a future life, and, therefore, of a resurrection 
of the dead. “ Have ye not read that which was spoken 
to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the 


92 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God 
of dead men, but of living men.” Jesus here assumes that 
God would not have so revealed and identified himself 
to Moses, unless his relation to the patriarchs, who were 
his servants and friends, had been a permanent one, 
existing at the time when he appeared to Moses. The 
Sadducees were put to silence, and it was unnecessary 
for Jesus to justify the assumption underlying his pos- 
itive argument. How he would have done this, if it had 
been necessary, we can only conjecture, but we have no 
reason to suppose that it would have been by unsound 
arguments. 1 

(2) Again, the language of Paul in Galatians 3: 16 
is said to be a piece of mere Rabbinical reasoning, of no 
value to the sober understanding. And we admit that 
if the Apostle saw in the exclusive use of the singular 
form of the word “ seed,” in several passages of the Old 
Testament evidence that it pointed to some kind of unity 
which had its centre and source in Christ, he certainly 
perceived something more in a particular form of ex- 
pression than simple scholarship would have been likely 
to discover, but which it has no right to deny when 
pointed out. (Compare 1 Sam. 8: 15 for a special use 
of the word “ seed.”) Very beautiful is the thought 
which Paul here expresses. All believers are virtually 
one person, and that person is Christ, Gal. 3 : 28. He is 
the life of their life. Their faith comes through him and 
unites them with him. When the nations are blessed 
it will be because they bless themselves in him. And 
when the Saviour said, “ I am the vine ; ye are the 
branches,” he enunciated the same truth. 2 

6. That the Scriptures are chargeable with false in- 
terpretation, and therefore cannot be inspired. This 
is one of the weightiest reasons for denying the religious 

1 Compare “ Studies in Ethics and Religion,” pp. 220, 221. 

2 “ Studies in Ethics and Religion,” pp. 227, 228. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 93 

inspiration of New Testament writers. If they mis- 
understood the teaching of the Old Testament, what 
confidence can we have in their teaching of the Christian 
religion? But when New Testament writers borrow 
words or sentences from the Old Testament, it is well to 
ascertain the purpose for which they are borrowed. They 
may be quoted in proof of certain doctrines or facts; 
they may be adduced as predictions of certain New 
Testament events which have now at last taken place; 
they may be cited as fulfilled afresh in New Testament 
times, though they had been fulfilled before, perhaps 
more than once; or they may be appropriated as words 
fitted to express, in the happiest manner, a thought or 
feeling which the writer wishes to lodge in the heart 
and memory of his reader. These are very different 
uses of Old Testament language, and must be carefully 
distinguished in answering the objection before us. 1 

It may also be laid down as a rule, to which there can 
be few exceptions, that we cannot be certain that a New 
Testament writer misinterprets a passage of the Old 
Testament, unless we know the meaning of both writers 
in the passages compared. And surely some of the 
Old Testament language, which is supposed to be mis- 
applied in the New Testament, is particularly obscure, 
for instance, Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1 : 22, 23. Indeed, a con- 
siderable number of the passages alleged by critics belong 
to this class of texts. 

Again, it is necessary to bear in mind that the present 
text of the Old Testament in Hebrew is by no means 
faultless ; that the Greek version of it used by New Tes- 

1 Compare Scott (J.), “Principles of New Testament Quota- 
tion established and applied to Bible Science”; Johnson (F.), 
“The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old”; Bar- 
rows (E. P.), “The Quotations of the New Testament in their 
Relation to the Question of Inspiration,” Bib. Sac. XXX, pp. 
305-322; Toy (C. H.), “Quotations in the New Testament.” 


94 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

tament writers was from different hands of unequal 
skill; that quotations were probably often made from 
memory, without consulting a manuscript; that words 
or sentences from different places were sometimes 
brought together in a New Testament citation, and that 
a germinant or typical sense was frequently ascribed to 
Old Testament language: for all these circumstances 
have to do with our estimate of the interpretations given 
to the Old Testament by writers of the New. Their task 
in this respect was a peculiar and somewhat difficult one ; 
for they were to employ the Old Testament with the light 
shed upon its teaching by the ministry, the death, and the 
resurrection of Christ and by the work of the Holy Spirit 
from the Pentecost onwards. And we cannot but think 
that their free, yet reverent, application of Old Testament 
language to New Testament realities is in profound har- 
mony with the teleological character of all revelation, 
and essentially correct. 

Hence, it is evident that New Testament writers, or 
at least some of them, looked upon Old Testament char- 
acters, events and ritual services, as being to some extent 
prophetic of higher Christian realities, shadows of good 
things to come. All the stages of human discipline, edu- 
cation, and redemption were thought of by them as, 
under God, correlated and interdependent. A principle 
of evolution, as well as a law of progress, connects the 
earlier stages with the later. This should least of all be 
forgotten by modern interpreters. Is it not really a 
self-evident principle in training a race of moral beings ? 

7. That the Scriptures teach scientific errors , and , 
therefore , cannot be inspired. These errors are found, 
it is said, in the biblical account of the creation, of the 
origin of man and the time of his appearance, of his 
longevity before the flood, of the connection of angels 
with women, of the deluge in the days of Noah, and of 
the astronomical worlds. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 95 

As a general reply to this objection, we may insist 
upon the fact that the sacred writers do not claim to be 
teachers of science, but of religion. It is their object to 
trace all things to the voluntary action of God as their 
first cause. The origination of man, as well as of every 
other living creature, they ascribe to the purpose and 
volition of the Almighty. The deluge was not a merely 
natural phenomenon, taking place without God’s fore- 
sight and direction as the Ruler of a sinful race. It was 
rather an expression of his holy will and a warning to 
sinners. 

( 1 ) As to the origin of man, the first chapter of Gene- 
sis places it after the production of vegetable and animal 
life, and the second chapter represents man’s body as 
shaped from preexisting matter, — saying nothing of the 
time occupied or of the process employed in moulding 
the human form, — and his spirit as communicated by the 
living energy of God. We do not understand the second 
chapter to affirm that man was created before the ex- 
istence of inferior life on earth — vegetable or animal. 
As man is the crown, the culmination, and the reason for 
all earthly life, his creation is first related, and this is 
followed by a narrative of the introduction of other be- 
ings on which his* welfare was conditioned. In other 
words, the order of thought in the infinite mind is fol- 
lowed in the narrative; namely, first, the end to be 
reached, and then the means for reaching it. For in 
rational action the final cause precedes the efficient cause, 
and efficient causation, through suitable means, provides 
for the accomplishment of the purpose springing from 
the final cause. 

(2) As to the length of the time which has passed 
since man appeared on earth, we do not know that the 
sacred writers meant to furnish any sufficient data. 
Their chronology of human history before the days of 
Abraham is confessedly obscure and uncertain. We are 


96 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

not sure that they intended to give a chronology that 
would cover the whole period, without any gaps. This 
remark applies to the numerical features of the gene- 
alogical tables from Adam to Noah, as well as to those 
which seem at first sight to bridge the chasm between 
Noah and Abraham. Conservative critics, like Dr. Green 
of Princeton, admit the correctness of this statement. 
The extraordinary longevity of men before the flood, 
according to the genealogical tables of the fifth chapter 
of Genesis, awakens suspicion of something not yet ex- 
plained in the character of the record. Non liquet . 1 

(3) As to the passage which is said by many able 
scholars to affirm the practice of sexual intercourse be- 
tween angels and women, another interpretation of its 
meaning is reasonable. While it is true that some of 
the later Jews imagined the words to be a reminiscence 
of superhuman sensuality and sin, working disaster to 
mankind, and while there is a sentence in Jude which 
may easily be supposed to imply the same thing, the 
monstrosity of the conduct described, on that hypothesis, 
justifies a rejection of it by every ingenuous critic, so 
long as any other interpretation is defensible. And such 
an interpretation is possible. 2 It is, in brief, that the 
writer means by “ the sons of God,” worshippers of the 
true God, and by “ the daughters of men,” daughters of 
the irreligious but ambitious and prosperous family of 
Cain. 

(4) As to the narrative of a universal deluge, there 
is no certain evidence that the sacred writer meant to 
affirm anything more than a submergence of the known 
world in water, with the destruction of all land animals, 
except those that were preserved in the ark. Against 

1 See Crawford (T. P.), “The Patriarchal Dynasties from 
Adam to Abraham.” Interesting and suggestive, if not fully 
convincing. 

2 See “ Doctrine of Angels,” infra. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 97 

this view of its meaning science has offered no con- 
clusive objection. The indications that the narrative 
is a compilation from two earlier narratives, each of 
which was simple and self-consistent while the com- 
pilation is repetitious and self-contradictory, are suf- 
ficient to justify the most painstaking inquiry, though 
the result of this inquiry would not seriously affect the 
historical value of the narrative. It would, however, not 
stand by itself, but would inevitably be associated with 
the view that is taken of the composition of the Hexa- 
teuch and of several other parts of the Old Testament. 
And if the hypothesis of compilation on a large scale is 
adopted, two things will have to be -assumed : a. a 
remarkable linguistic and historical self-consistency in 
the original documents, and b. an equally remarkable 
indifference to logical coherence or historical self-con- 
sistency in the final compilation. 

(5) As to the other point, the manner in which the 
sky is spoken of as a solid firmament, having windows 
that can be opened for the outpouring of rain, we can 
only say that the language seems to us figurative and 
phenomenal, not intended to teach what is alleged. In 
his “ American Notes” (p. 72), Charles Dickens, de- 
scribing a prairie sunset, uses the following language: 
“ The decline of day here was very gorgeous, tinging 
the firmament deeply with red and gold up to the very 
keystone of the arch above us.” Had this passage been 
found in Genesis, there are critics who would conclude 
that the sacred writer believed the expanse above our 
heads a piece of so.lid masonry — a hollow sphere of 
stone. Is not the keystone mentioned? And what bet- 
ter evidence can be desired that the writer meant to speak 
the literal truth about the sky ? 

8. That the Scriptures teach historical errors, and 
therefore cannot he inspired. 

Before referring to any specimen of these errors, two 


9 8 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


remarks are in place : ( i ) They are supposed to be more 
numerous in the Old Testament than in the New. In 
other words, those portions of sacred history which can 
be most fully tested by means of profane history, are 
found to be singularly trustworthy — almost every year 
bringing to light confirmations of their truthfulness. 
(2) The alleged errors relate, for the most part, to dates, 
numbers, and names, or to minor, non-essential features 
of the history. Anachronisms, numerical exaggerations, 
chronological and genealogical mistakes and duplicated 
stories are affirmed to be so many and so plain that it is 
useless to attempt any defence of biblical history. But 
it deserves to be ‘borne in mind that numerical errors are 
more likely than any others to be introduced by tran- 
scribers, that round numbers are sometimes used for 
exact numbers, that persons frequently have more than 
one name, or different persons have the same name, 
that words and sentences are occasionally inserted by a 
later hand, and that many stories may not be duplicated 
though they are said to be. 

An example of the alleged anachronisms of the Bible 
may be found in Acts 5 : 36, “ For before these days rose 
up Theudas,” etc. Josephus, it is affirmed, places the 
insurrection of Theudas some ten years after the delivery 
of this speech; hence, Gamaliel could not have used the 
language here ascribed to him by Luke. But to this crit- 
icism it has been replied that there may have been more 
than one insurgent by the name of Theudas in that tur- 
bulent period, or that Luke’s Theudas may have been 
identical with one of the four insurgents to each of whom 
Josephus gives the name Simon. Several of the Apos- 
tles had at least two distinct names, and it is not improb- 
able that Theudas had another name. 

In 1 Sam. 6:19, “ And he [i. e., God] smote the men 
of Beth-Shemesh, because they had looked into the Ark 
of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


99 


and three score and ten men” (50,070), there is doubt- 
less a numerical error, an error of exaggeration. It 
seems incredible that so many people dwelt in Beth- 
Shemesh. For, according to all other notices of this place 
in the Bible, it was a small town, with perhaps five or 
ten thousand inhabitants. An error has probably crept 
into the text from a marginal gloss. Thenius pro- 
nounces the collocation of the Hebrew numerals to be 
“ unheard of,” and supposes that a mistake was made ifi 
writing the marginal gloss. 1 Josephus says that seventy 
men were smitten (Ant. vi. 4), and this may be the 
actual number, though how he obtained it is unknown. 

The genealogies of Jesus the Christ, by Matthew and 
Luke, have been pronounced inconsistent with each other 
and therefore untrustworthy; for example, an error is 
detected in Matthew’s assertion that there were three 
series of fourteen generations each, from Abraham to 
Jesus, whereas one of these lists has only thirteen names. 
But, inspiration aside, it is scarcely credible that Mat- 
thew, the publican, made a mistake in counting fourteen, 
and that no one of his fellow-disciples observed the error 
and secured its correction. Besides, there is no great 
difficulty in filling out the three groups. The first be- 
gins with Abraham and ends with David, counting both. 
The second begins with David (“ from David ”) and 
ends with “ the carrying away into Babylon,” though 
not including the persons carried away. After “ the 
carrying away ” the list begins with Jechoniah and ends 
with Jesus. It is said to have been a common practice 
with the Jews to distribute genealogies in this way, re- 
peating or leaving out some names in order to secure 
symmetry in numbers. 2 

1 Compare Warington on “ The Inspiration of the Scriptures,” 
p. 201 f. 

2 For other criticisms of the genealogy of Christ, see Robin- 
son’s (E.) “Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek,” p. 183 f . ; 


LifC. 


lOO 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


But it ought, perhaps, to be said, that a genealogy, 
in order to be of any value to men in the time of Christ, 
must have been copied without change from public or 
family archives. Any change in its contents would have 
diminished its value, even though the change had been 
an improvement in fullness or exactness. Its practical 
utility would depend on its agreement with extant rec- 
ords. For the purpose which it was meant to serve 
in the sacred writings, its imperfection was necessary 
to its perfection. Any improvement made by an evan- 
gelist would have exposed it to suspicion. But the Spirit 
of inspiration was a Spirit of wisdom, intent upon pre- 
serving the essential truth, though it must be in an earth- 
en vessel. The inspired writer can only be held respon- 
sible for its trustworthiness as a proof of Christ’s descent 
from David and Abraham. 

9. That the Scriptures abound in contradictory state- 
ments, and therefore cannot be inspired. Many pages 
could be filled with sentences from the Bible which seem 
to be contradictory, but which further reflection will 
show to be consistent with one another. For example, 
(1) statements may be contradictory in words, but not 
in sense. Thus Prov. 26 : 4, 5, “Answer not a fool accord- 
ing to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer 
a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own 
eyes.” In other words, Be wise in your treatment even 
of fools, adapting your conduct to theirs in such a way 
as to rebuke their conceit without becoming like them. 
Act reasonably always, but not in the same way always, 
for differing circumstances require different action. 

(2) Statements may seem to be contradictory in sense 
when they are not. For instance, Paul insists that a man 
is justified by faith and not by works, while James de- 
clares that a man is justified by works, and not by faith 

Hervey (A. C.), “Genealogies of our Lord Jesus Christ”; 
“Genealogy of Christ,” Smith's (B. D.). 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


IOI 


only. But Paul means by faith a faith that works by 
love, and James means by works a service of God which 
springs from faith. In like manner Jesus affirms, “ I and 
my Father are one,” and in another connection, “ My 
Father is greater than I.” There is a profound unity of 
nature which makes the Father and the Son one, but 
there was a distinction of condition which then separated 
them, and there is a distinction of personality which 
always separates them. Thus the Trinitarian affirms the 
unity of God in one respect and his triunity in another. 

(3) Statements may be contradictory in sense, but not 
in moral bearing. For example, rest from labor on the 
Sabbath was enjoined upon all the Israelites, but in the 
same law extra service was required of the priests. In 
other words, all were told to rest on the Sabbath, and a 
certain part of the people was forbidden to rest from its 
wonted labor on that day. But it will be remembered 
that the people were to remember the Sabbath day to 
keep it holy. And in keeping it holy they were to wor- 
ship God as well as to rest from ordinary labor. The end 
of both provisions of the law was the highest good of the 
people, physical, moral, and religious. 

(4) Finally, the statements of Moses and those of 
Jesus concerning divorce seem to be contradictory, and 
are so in their immediate operation, but not in their moral 
bearing. Deut. 24:1-4; Math. 19:3-9. Both were in- 
tended to increase the sacredness of the marriage tie; 
but, owing to the state of society in the time of Moses, 
the civil law was made less stringent than the rule which 
Jesus laid down for his people and reign. 

If these explanations are properly weighed and the 
general fact of the progressive method of revelation is 
at the same time duly considered, the alleged contradic- 
tions of Scripture will rapidly disappear, and the marvel- 
lous unity of spirit and teaching will rise into view. 


102 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Concession 

Yet it is beyond question true that many numerical 
contradictions have crept into the text of the Old Tes- 
tament through the oversight of copyists. See 2 Sam. 
24:9; 1 Chron. 21:5; 2 Sam. 24:24; 1 Chron. 21:25; 
2 Sam. 23 : 8 ; 1 Chron. 1 1 : 1 1 ; 2 Sam. 8:4; 1 Chron. 
18:4; 2 Sam. 10:18; 1 Chron. 19 : 18; 1 Kings 9:28; 
2 Chron. 8: 18; 2 Kings 8:26; 2 Chron. 22:2; 2 Kings 
24:8; 2 Chron. 36:9; Ezra 2 : 69 ; Neh. 7 : 72. 1 

There are obvious reasons why it is peculiarly dif- 
ficult to avoid errors in the transcription of numbers. 
Nothing short of a perpetual miracle would have pre- 
vented them. 

10. That the Scriptures contain numerous false predic- 
tions and therefore cannot be inspired. 

In reply to this objection, we are justified in urging 
two facts. (1) That, from the nature of the case, pre- 
diction must be more obscure than almost any other kind 
of writing. If it were possible to describe future events 
as minutely and accurately as past events, it would be 
certainly undesirable to do so. No good would come of 
it, and it would be likely to result in fatalistic indiffer- 
ence, or in heaven-daring opposition to the divine will. 
(2) That prophecy relating to the future is sometimes 
expressly and sometimes tacitly conditional, Deut. 30: 10 
f. ; Jer. 18:7-10; 26:2 f . ; 36:2, 3 ; Jonah 4 : 2. This is 
so generally the case, that an objection to the divine 
authority or inspiration of Scripture founded upon the 
non-fulfillment of prophecy must be pronounced worth- 
less. We can hardly account for the respect which some 
have shown to this objection. 

1 Haley (J. W.), “An Examination of the Alleged Discrep- 
ancies of the Bible” contains valuable suggestions on this part 
of our subject; see p. 38 f. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 103 

11. That the Scriptures teach had morality, and there- 
fore, cannot he inspired . 1 

Deception, treachery, revenge, and cruelty are thought 
to be approved either in explicit terms or by speaking 
well of men who practise them. The same is said to be 
true of polygamy, concubinage, free divorce, and slavery, 
1 Sam. 16:2; 2 Kings 8 : 1 1 ; — Judges 4 : 18-21 ; 5 : 24- 
27 ; — 1 Sam. 15 : 2, 3 ; Ex. 21 : 24, 25 ; Deut. 19:21; — 2 
Sam. 12:31; 1 Chron. 20:3; — Gen. 29:21 f. ; 30 : 1 f. ; 
Deut. 24: 1-4; Lev. 26: 39-46. But several points are to 
be closely examined before we accept this statement as 
just to the Scriptures. 

(1) One is, the progressive, educational method of 
revelation. If that method is necessary or wise in view of 
man’s nature, it will not do to deny its applicability to 
practical morals as well as to religion. The standard 
of outward action is not the same for a child as for a 
man, for a barbarian as for a Greek. In the childhood 
of religion rougher manners are tolerable than should 
be suffered at a later stage. 

(2) Another is, the impossibility in many cases of 
determining the real moral quality of actions. Only God 
can do this perfectly; and he looks not at the outward 
appearance, but at the heart. It is more than possible 
that the terrible act of Jael was the issue of intense 
loyalty to the God of Israel. Men are judged righteously 
when their purpose and motive and knowledge are taken 
into account. And, therefore, while the foundations of 
moral conduct are forever the same, the structures built 

1 Bruce (W. S.), “The Ethics of the Old Testament”; Hes- 
sey (J. A.), “Moral Difficulties of the Bible,” First and Second 
Series; Edzvards (B. B.), “Imprecations in the Scriptures,” Bib. 
Sac. XIII., pp. 551-563; Park (E. A.), “Imprecatory Psalms,” 
Bib. Sac. XIX., pp. 165-210; Warington (G.), “The Inspiration 
of Scripture ; its Limits and Effects,” p. 242 ff. ; the discussion of 
Mr. Warington, though brief, is very much to the point. 


104 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


on those foundations may be various in the various con- 
ditions of mankind. 

(3) Still another is, that silence does not always mean 
approbation. Even temporary permission does not sig- 
nify indorsement for all time. God permitted an easy 
but regulated way of divorce under the law of Moses, 
although it did not accord with the original norm of 
marriage, but only tended to prepare the people for a 
return to that ideal norm. This was the thing that could 
then be done by civil processes, and the perfect Teacher 
does not condemn it as a temporary rule. So of slavery. 
It was regulated and mitigated, but not directly forbid- 
den. Such a view of God and of man was taught as 
would in the end reveal the evils of slavery and lead to 
its cessation. God was pleased to work by slow pro- 
cesses. The root of the evil was in the selfishness of 
man, and the evil could not be effectually removed with- 
out destroying its root. The Bible is constructed on the 
plan of making the tree good, in order to make the fruit 
good. It plants the seed of true virtue in the centre of 
the soul, that it may work from within outwardly. This 
is often a slow process, but it is the only sure one. 
And it is through and through merciful as well as moral. 
But if permission does not always imply approval, much 
less does silence. The Bible faithfully describes many 
evil deeds, without formally condemning them. Yet it is 
often found to condemn them informally by narrating 
their dreadful* consequences. Witness the story of 
David after his atrocious sin against Bathsheba and 
Uriah. 

12. That the Scriptures teach bad theology, and there- 
fore cannot be inspired. 

In particular it is averred that God is represented 
in the Bible as changeful, jealous, revengeful, and al- 
together human, Gen. 6:6; Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 
15: n, 29; 2 Sam. 24:16; Mai. 3:16; James 1:17; 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 105 

— Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Ezek. 39:25; Zech. 1:14; 1 
Cor. 10:22; Dent. 32:35; Heb. 10:30; Isa. 59:17; 
^3 : 4; Rom. 3:5; 12: 19. These passages, if they were 
the only ones revealing the character of God, might 
signify just the same when applied to him as they do 
when applied to men. But they are not the only passages 
which speak of his character. They are overbalanced 
by others so clear that we are constrained to eliminate 
from the words “repent/’ “be jealous,” and “take 
vengeance,” every tincture of the narrowness or bitter- 
ness which we condemn in men. We are reminded by 
such texts of the imperfection of human language and 
the limits of human thought when applied to God. 

But we must also remember, while reading them, the 
ends sought by revelation, ends which go far to determine 
its style. For the proximate ends of revelation are 
instruction and impression, with a view to the ultimate 
end, the restoration of men to fellowship with God. 
Stupid and hardened sinners must be moved, in order to 
be saved. Hence the feeling of a holy God must be made 
real to their minds. And this can only be done by cast- 
ing it, as it were, into the molds of human feeling. 
But human feeling changes with the changing characters 
of those who excite it. And, therefore, for the sake of 
impression, the eternal opposition of God to sinful con- 
duct is represented in the same way, that is, as coming 
into existence along with the sinful conduct which it 
antagonizes. Metaphysical accuracy is sacrificed in be- 
half of moral truth. Perhaps we ought to say that an 
absolutely correct metaphysical idea of God is above the 
grasp of finite reason. 

The result of our investigation is that the Bible is a 
trustworthy revelation of God, i.e., of his being, his 
character, and his relation to other beings , especially men. 
It can be appealed to with the same confidence with which 
we appeal to the order of nature. The testimony which 


106 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

it bears to the personality and the moral perfection of 
God is particularly emphatic. And by the Scriptures alone 
has God given to us a clear revelation of his trinal per- 
sonality, of his infinite mercy, and of his provision for 
the restoration of sinners to his favor and life eternal. 
In our further study of theism we shall therefore make 
free use of the Holy Scriptures. 


CHAPTER III 


RESULTANT DOCTRINE OF GOD 

G UIDED, then, by the Holy Scriptures, as well as by 
the intuitions and moral and religious needs of our 
own souls, we must believe: 

I. That God is a Living and Morally Perfect 
Being 

As such he is often called the living God and holy. Pas- 
sages are numerous both in the Old Testament and the 
New which characterize him in this way. Lev. 19:2; 
20:7; 1 Sam. 2:2; 26 : 16 ; Tsa. 6:3; John 5:26; 1 Pet. 
2:4. 

1. But a morally perfect being must have a perfect 
intellect which insures in action perfect knowledge. In 
other words, he must be omniscient. For more is meant 
by moral perfection than mere freedom from sin, or in- 
tentional wrongdoing; it means absolutely right feeling, 
purpose, and conduct in all possible conditions from 
eternity to eternity; and nothing short of perfect knowl- 
edge can insure this. 

(1) Notice the language of Scripture, 1 Kings 8:39; 
Ps. 139 : 2, 11, 12; Jer. 16: 17; Luke 16: 15 ; Rom. 8:27; 
Heb. 4:13; Isa. 42:9; Ex. 3:18 f.; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 
139:16; 1 Sam. 23:10-13. 

(2) The knowledge of God has been described as 
intuitive, independent, complete, and timeless. Such 
knowledge is consistent with a real though derived energy 
in physical causes, with a real though limited freedom 
in voluntary causes, and with purpose and election on the 
107 


108 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

part of God. Such knowledge is consistent with the 
real action, if such there be, of physical causes, inasmuch 
as the action of these is understood to be uniform and 
necessary. It is also in obvious harmony with purpose 
and election on the part of God, inasmuch as He must 
be supposed to know what he has purposed to do. In 
these cases God’s knowledge might be perfect though 
it were strictly foreknowledge. But how can God 
know what men will do within the limits of their free 
agency? As far as we can see, this is only possible if 
the knowledge of God is conceived of as timeless, that 

is, as looking directly at all events whether past, present, 
or future, and not as seeing future events in their causes. 
The problems suggested by this view are, however, ex- 
ceedingly difficult, and perhaps insoluble. 

“ God’s foreknowledge,” says Charnock, “ is not, simply 
considered, the cause of anything. God foreknows things be- 
cause they will come to pass; but things are not future be- 
cause he foreknows them . . . God did not only know our 
actions but the manner of our actions, that is, that we would 
do them freely . . . Man hath a power to do otherwise than 
that which God foreknows he will do.” 

And Augustine remarks : 

“ If God foresees our will, as it is certain that he foresees 

it, there will therefore be the will, and there cannot be a will 
if it is not free: therefore this liberty is foreseen by God. 
Hence his prescience does not destroy my liberty.” 1 

2. A morally perfect being must have a perfect moral 
judgment which insures in action perfect righteousness. 

(1) And the Scriptures teach us that God is such a 
being, Ps. 11:7; 15:1; 33:5; 45:7; Lev. 19:2; Isa. 
6:3; Deut. 32: 4; Ps. 97: 2; 145: 17; Rom. 2; 13; 7: 12. 

(2) It may here be remarked: 

1 “ De Libero Arbitrio,” L. iii., ch. 3. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 109 

that the justice of God is his righteousness expressed 
in moral government: that his righteousness is funda- 
mental and cannot be resolved into any other quality : 
that his righteousness and benevolence may impel to 
the same conduct, neither of them being any check to the 
other : that the words “ anger,” “ fury,” “ vengeance,” 
etc., do not denote an effervescent feeling in God, but 
an eternal displeasure with sin ; they do not exaggerate 
God’s hostility to moral evil: and that temporal calam- 
ities do not prove exceptional guilt: Lu. 13:1-5; Job, 
passim. 

3. A morally perfect being must have a perfect sen- 
sibility, which insures in action perfectly right feeling 
and desire . 1 (1) The Scriptures abound in representa- 
tions of the love of God and his desire for the welfare of 
all his creatures: Ps. 57:11; 145:9; 103:11-13; 136: 
1-26; Isa. 49:14-16; Matt. 5:45; 7:11; Luke 12:7; 
John 3:16; 1 John 4:8, 18 ; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Cor. 13 : 1 1 ; 
Eze. 18:23; 33: 11. 

(2) The grace of God is his good will exercised to- 
wards the guilty or undeserving. The mercy of God is 
his benevolence exercised towards those who are miser- 
able as well as undeserving. The patience of God is his 
benevolence exercised in forbearing to punish the guilty 
without delay. And the zvisdom of God is his omnis- 
cience, righteousness, and benevolence, seeking the best 
ends by the use of the best means. Wisdom is often 
treated as a distinct attribute; but it is easily seen to be 
a resultant of perfect knowledge, righteousness and 
benevolence. “ Right ends and means make wisdom,” 
and these can and must be chosen by One who is omnis- 

1 Charnock ( S. ) , “A Treatise on the Excellence and Attri- 
butes of God.” An able work on a great theme. Foster (R. S.), 
“ God : Nature and Attributes.” Good, but popular. Shedd (W. 
G. T.), “Dogmatic Theology”; Clarke (W. N.), “Outline of 
Theology”; Dorner (J. A.), “System of Christian Doctrine.” 


no 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


dent and holy. The moral judgment of mankind af- 
firms this unequivocally. 

4. A perfect moral being must have a perfect will, 
which insures in action all that pozver can do , under the 
direction of perfect knowledge, holiness, and love. This 
is denominated omnipotence. The impression made by 
the language of Scripture on an open mind, is, that 
God is omnipotent in the sense described. See Matt. 
19:26; Luke 1:37; Eph. 3:20; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gen. 
18 : 14 ; Jer. 27:5; Isa. 40 : 26 ; Ps. 136 : 4 ; Jer. 32:17; 
Job 41 passim. 

5. In all these attributes we have evidence of the 
Personality of God. He is a being who knows, feels, 
and wills. Every quality of a personal being is 
predicated of him. How any impartial student could 
imagine that the Old Testament writers thought of him 
as nothing but a “ stream of influence,” a “ something, 
not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,” is in- 
comprehensible. Moreover, man is said to have been 
made in the image and likeness of God, and man is our 
type of a personal being. He possesses self-conscious- 
ness and will, and looks upon personal life as the high- 
est kind of life. If there be any that is higher, he has 
no power to conceive of it. 

6. But the Bible goes further, and uses language which 
supposes God to be, in some true sense of the word, tri- 
personal. 

(1) For the New Testament teaches, 

a. The deity of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit respectively, John 1:1; Acts 5 : 3, 4. 

b. Their mutual knowledge and love, Matt. 11:27; 
1 Cor 2: 10; Matt. 3: 17; John 3:34, 35; 4:34; 5:30; 
Rom. 8 : 27. 

c. Their distinct yet relative offices, 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 
Eph. 2 : 18-20. 

In order to recognize clearly the unity a§ wqll as 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


III 


the tripersonality of God, the word " trinity ” has been 
adopted as the best available designation for the true 
God. Some have suggested the propriety of using the 
word “ triunity ” to denote the ontological or eternal 
nature of the Godhead, and the word “ trinity ” to denote 
the manifestation of the Godhead in the work of sal- 
vation. The use of the two words with this distinction 
would be sometimes convenient to theologians, and per- 
haps in the end favorable to clearness of thought. 

Answer to Difficulties 

In view of the logical objections raised to this doctrine, 
it may be remarked, (a) That a distinction may be justly 
made between what is above and what is against human 
reason. A tripersonal being is doubtless above human 
reason, but we cannot think that it is against that reason. 
So, too, an infinite being is above but not against reason. 
Everything which is too high or complex to be understood 
is above human reason, (b) That there is no manifest 
contradiction between an assertion that God is one in 
essence, and an assertion that the essence of God is tri- 
personal. The powers or functions of a single essence 
or substance may be manifold. At least there is no ab- 
surdity in saying this. (c) The words “ person ” and 
“ personal ” are more or less modified by the unity of the 
Godhead, and only signify that the distinction contem- 
plated is of a personal nature. There is, doubtless, an 
interpenetration of life and action in the divine trinity 
impossible to any three human beings, and a unity at the 
root of the distinctions which cannot be too strongly 
emphasized. 

(2) If the trinity of God is accepted, it assists us to 
comprehend in some measure his self-sufficiency and his 
love. By the self-sufficiency of God we mean that he 
is complete in every respect, having need of nothing addi- 


I I 2 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tional to himself for his highest perfection and blessed- 
ness. Hence, creation was not necessary to his happi- 
ness, was not called for by self-interest, but was an act 
of love. And by love we mean a social affection, an 
interest in the well-being of others, or, at least, of another. 
When we are told that “ God is love,” and that “ he who 
abides in love abides in God,” the word “ love ”' is used 
in an altruistic sense, which is its ordinary meaning. But 
this altruistic affection is inconceivable apart from cre- 
ation, unless there are distinctions of a personal nature 
in the Godhead. God cannot love, unless he is either 
bipersonal or tripersonal, or unless he originates finite 
persons to love. But it is easily conceivable that he can 
perfectly love an Alter Ego, possessing the same spiritual 
nature as himself. In the face of this Alter Ego, he 
can see manifested all that is fair and good in his own 
being, and can love that associate of his divinity as he 
loves himself. And if there is still Another Distinction 
of a personal nature in the Godhead, we can see that there 
must be the blessedness of mutual love to a third. Love 
to another worthy of perfect love, and love in common 
with another to a third, equally worthy of infinite love, 
completes the circle, and seems to give a Divine Being 
sufficient unto himself and to the highest ideal of life. 

Speaking of the doctrine of the Trinity, Julius Muller 
says : 

“ Its inmost significance is that God has in himself the 
eternal and wholly adequate object of his love, independent 
of all relation to the world, John 17:24, ‘Thou lovedst me 
before the foundation of the world * ; see also verse 5. This 
requires alike the unity of the essence, and the distinctness of 
the persons. For without the distinction of persons, with- 
out an I and Thou, there could be no love. Again, with- 
out the unity of essence there would follow from the love 
of God a necessary relation to an essence distinct from 
God. Both are therefore implied in what is said of the 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 1. 1 3 

Logos in the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, the distinction 
of persons by the rjv 777)69 tov dtov) the unity of essence by the 
Oeo<s rjv. ’ 1 1 

II. That God is an Infinite Being or Spirit 

Under this proposition will be placed God’s natural 
attributes or modes of existence. By calling him Spirit we 
mean to affirm that he is mind without the limitations 
of matter; Ex. 20:4; Ps. 139:7; Isa. 40:25; John 
4:24; Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1 : 17. The lan- 
guage of Ps. 139:7, and of John 4:24, appears to 
account for the omnipresence of God by the fact of his 
spirituality. There is no evidence that spirit fills any 
part of space so as to exclude other reality from it, or 
that the Divine Spirit is in any way conditioned by 
space. 

1. As infinite, God is independent. (1) In respect 

to his existence, which is underived and absolute. He 
is One who has life in himself, Ex. 3:14; John 5:26. 
(2) In respect to his knowledge, which is intuitive and 
direct, Heb. 4: 13, and passages cited under perfect 
knowledge above. (3) In respect to his action, which 
is determined by his own knowledge and will, Gen. 1:1; 
Acts 17:24. (4) In respect to his happiness, Eph. 1 : 1 1 ; 

1 Tim. 6:15, 1 6, which flows in the last analysis from 
his own action. 

2. As infinite, God is immutable. He is forever the 
same in essence , in knowledge , in character, in purpose, 
and in blessedness, Ps. 102:28; Isa. 40:28; Mai. 3:6; 
Heb. 1:12; James 1 : 17. The obvious meaning of these 
passages need not be modified on account of other ex- 
pressions which speak of change in God. The latter are 

1 “ The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” II., p. 136 f. See Fair- 
bairn (A. M.), “The Place of Christ in Modern Theology,” pp. 
392-40; Gerhart (E. V.), “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” 
I., p. 434 f. ; Augustine, “ De Trinitate.” 


1 14 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

adaptations of the infinite to our finite modes of thought. 
But the idea of God’s nature is always realized in himself. 
This is meant by the adjective aXrjOivos, John 17:3; 1 
Thess. i : g; i John 5:20; Rev. 6: 10. 

Some have supposed that God is mutable both in hap- 
piness and in action. But does not omniscience preclude 
fluctuations in feeling? And may we not say that the 
mode of God’s action, though above our understanding, 
is subjectively timeless? That all his action, ad extra , 
is so united as to be wholly present at once to his con- 
sciousness ? Perhaps it is better to say with the Psalmist, 
“ Such knowledge is too wonderful for me : It is high, 
I cannot attain unto it,” Ps. 139: 6. 

3. As infinite, God is eternal. His existence is with- 
out beginning or end. In this all theists are agreed, and 
it is the teaching'of Holy Scripture, as well as of reason, 
Gen. 21 : 33 ; Deut. 32 : 40 ; Ps. 90:2; Isa. 41:4; 1 Tim. 
1 : 17 ; 2 Pet. 3:8; Rev. 10 : 6. But many theists include 
the idea of timelessness in the eternity of God. This is 
suggested by such passages as John 3:13 and 8:58, 
which refer to the higher nature of Jesus Christ, and 
perhaps by that of James 1 : 17, which refers simply to 
God, or„ possibly, to God the Father. It is also suggested 
by the difficulty of conceiving how temporal succession 
could be experienced by a self-existent being, or how 
temporal limitation could exist along with perfection of 
nature. Yet it is evident that the Scriptures usually 
speak of God as if his life were divisible into periods, 
past and future, like ours, and it is also clear that the 
faculties of the human mind are wholly unable to con- 
ceive of existence independent of time. If God is a 
perfect being, can he grow wiser by growing older, or can 
he grow older without growing wiser? It appears to 
be self-evident that a being living in time, or under law 
to time, must be finite, must find his knowledge changing 
if not increasing, and as far as human reason can judge 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 1 15 

of the case, must be uncertain as to what will occur in 
the wide realm of moral action among men and angels. 

4. As infinite, God is also omnipresent. This, too, is 
an unimaginable mode of existence, but not therefore 
incredible. There is no point in the universe where God 
is not. In many places the Scriptures represent God as 
filling immensity ; in others, they represent him as being 
present everywhere, I Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 6:18; Isa. 
43 : 2 ; 66 : 1 ; Jer. 23:23; Amos 9:2; Ps. 139 : 6-12 ; Matt. 
28 : 20 ; Acts 17 : 27, 28. Lotze says that, by omnipresence 
is meant the fact that “ God is alike near to every point 
of the world by his immediate activity ; that conse- 
quently, his will is neither compelled to traverse any way 
whatever in order to reach an element of the universe; 
nor does it need any intermediate agency to act on it.” 
And Dr. Park defines omnipresence by saying that 
“ God does or can develop his activity in all places at 
the same time.” 

No attempt has been made to trace the progressive 
revelation of God in the sacred writings, ( 1 ) because we 
are entitled and required to give the view which results 
from the teaching of the whole Bible, as the final tes- 
timony of Scripture concerning God; and (2) because 
biblical criticism has not yet laid securely the foundations 
for a history of the progressive revelation of God to the 
people of Israel. As long as there is reason for doubt 
concerning the date of the principal documents on which 
we rely for the early religion and history of Israel, so 
long will it be unsafe to state what views of God were 
taught at different times. Biblical theology, as a historical 
study, must wait for the conclusions of criticism. 

But systematic theology is permitted and expected to 
pluck the ripe fruit of revelation, as well as of nature, 
giving less attention to the germination and growth of 
that fruit. Indeed, it would be perfectly legitimate for 
systematic theology to incorporate simply the teaching 


Il6 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

of Christ and his Apostles, omitting the preparatory and 
less adequate teaching of the Old Testament. Yet the 
doctrine of God is presented with such beauty and power 
in many parts of the Old Testament, that we cannot fail 
to be helped by the presentation. His holiness in Isaiah, 
his justice in Amos, his mercy in Hosea, his righteousness 
and grace in the Pentateuch, and all his moral perfections 
in the Psalms appeal to every noble and holy impulse in 
the Christian’s heart. Even in the earlier record God is 
a Shepherd and a Father to his people ; and long before 
the birth of Christ there were predictions of his send- 
ing out his light and his truth to the ends of the earth. 

III. That God has an Eternal Purpose 

1. With the evidence before our minds that God is a 
self-existent and personal Being on whom all other 
beings and things depend, we may next consider his 
action ad extra , in the light of human reason and of 
divine revelation. Not that the light of reason will make 
everything plain, so that we shall understand the ways 
of God as though he were altogether such an one as our- 
selves, but that it is the best light we have, and may be 
followed, if not boldly, at least cautiously. If, then, we 
discover order in the universe, it must be referred to him, 
and if order points to ends, proximate and ultimate, both 
the ends and the order presuppose a comprehensive pur- 
pose or plan in the mind of God. 

2. Of this, as might be expected, the Scriptures afford 
evidence. See the first chapter of Ephesians ; Isa. 14 : 24 ; 
46:10, 11 ; Acts 15:18; 17:26; Rom. 8:28; 9:11; 
2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:951 Cor. 2:7; Matt. 25 : 34 ; 
Acts 2 : 23 ; 4 : 27, 28 ; Prov. 16 : 4, 9. 

From these and other passages it appears that the pur- 
pose of God antedates creation, springs from his own 
good pleasure, embraces all the events of time, and goes 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 1 17 

into effect in every instance. Contemplated from the 
divine side such a purpose seems to be reasonable and 
necessary. It is almost inconceivable that a perfect Being 
should undertake the work of creation and moral govern- 
ment without it. But contemplated from the human v side, 
it seems at first sight to be inconsistent with moral free- 
dom and accountability. Whether it is so depends on the 
way in which the purpose is accomplished. It may be 
just as consistent with human freedom as is the fore- 
knowledge of God. 

The same reply must be made to the assertion that 
such a purpose on the part of God renders the use of 
means futile. For there is every reason to believe that 
this purpose is to be accomplished, in great measure, by 
the use of means, especially because God’s plan, or pur- 
pose, must be supposed to include the intelligence, sen- 
sibility and will of man who is a free moral agent and 
coworker with God, whose choices must count for some- 
thing in the divine administration. 

3. In considering the purpose of God as logically ante- 
cedent to his action ad extra, it is natural to inquire after 
the chief end sought by him in that action. 1 The Scrip- 
tures suggest two distinguishable ends, for the attainment 
of which God undertook the work of creation and moral 
government, viz., (i) the manifestation of his own glory 
and (2) the communication of good to his creatures. His 
own glory must consist in the perfection, natural and 
moral, of his nature. To show what he is, is to manifest 
his glory, and to be appreciated and loved by moral 
beings, is to be glorified. 

The following passages teach that the end for which 

1 See Edwards (J.), “A Dissertation concerning the End for 
which God created the World”; Martin (J.), “The Glory of 
God as the Great End of Moral Action,” in “ Theol. Tracts,” III., 
pp. 221-242; Baird (S. J.), “God’s object was to reveal himself,” 
in “ Elohim Revealed,” p. 84 f. 


Il8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

God created the world was his own glory: Prov. 16:4; 
Rom. 1 1 : 36 ; Col. 1:16; Heb. 2:10; Isa. 48:11; 43 : 6, 
7 ; 60:21; 61 : 3 ; Eph. 1:5; John 17 : 10 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 10 
12; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 14:6, 7; 1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31; 
1 : 26-30 ; Eph. 2:8-10. 

And those subjoined suggest that the end for which he 
made the world was the good of his creatures : Ps. 103 : 9 ; 
Ezek. 18 : 32 ; 33 : 1 1 ; Lam. 3 : 33 ; 2 Pet. 3:9; John 3:16; 
Eph. 2:4; 1 John 4:9, 10, 16; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:20; 
Deut. 7 : 7, 8 ; Ps. 25 : 8 ; 31 : 17 ; 44 : 26 ; 1 Cor. 3 : 22, 23 ; 
2 Cor. 4:15; Ps. 136:4-9. 

(3) It is thought that these two ends may be expressed 
as the manifestation of his own nature, or glory, by com- 
municating good to beings who are endowed by him with 
capacities to receive good. And the fact that we become 
like him by being animated with love to others leads to a 
belief that his purpose to manifest his own glory is 
intrinsically the same as his purpose to create "other beings 
and impart to them the greatest possible good. To wish 
them to honor love is to wish them to know and honor 
himself, and, by being like himself, to be most blessed. 

(4) But two objections are raised to this view, one of 
them founded on the existence of suffering, and the other 
on the existence of sin, in the world. 1 a. Suffering is 
said to be in any and every form, an evil. But, even apart 
from sin, it exists among the creatures of God, and as an 
evil it cannot be embraced in a purpose which springs 
from love and fulfills itself by communicating good to 
finite beings. 

In answer to this, it may be said, that suffering cannot 

1 Ballantyne (J.), “On the Origin of Evil”; Bellamy (Jos.), 
“The Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin”; Young (J.), 
“Evil not of God”; Barnes (Alb.), “Sin and Suffering in the 
Universe”; Ernesti' (H. F. T. L.), “Ursprung der Siinde”; 
Miiller (J.), “ The Christian Doctrine of Sin” ; Royce (J.), “ The 
Problem of Job,” in “ Studies of Good and Evil.” 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 119 

be included in the purpose of God, as an end to be sought 
for its own sake, but it may -be included in that purpose as 
a means to greater happiness than could be otherwise at- 
tained. And it is not difficult to believe it such a means. 
For by no other agency could life be more surely guarded, 
or the highest development of life be more certainly in- 
sured. By no other agency could animals be more effectu- 
ally moved to seek their food and to partake of it when 
needed. By no other agency could the sum total of animal 
life and of agreeable sensation be made greater than by 
this, the ministry of suffering. 

b. There is sin in the world, and sin, in any and every 
form, is purely evil. It is moral evil, it is what ought not 
to be. Hence, it cannot be embraced in the purpose of 
One whose ultimate and highest aim is to impart good to 
finite beings. 

This certainly is a great, if not an insuperable, objection 
to the view proposed. We have no desire to minimize it. 
Yet, if a universe which contains in it a race of beings able 
to do wrong as well as to do right is on the whole better, 
notwithstanding the presence of sin, than a universe with- 
out such a race of beings, even this objection is answered. 
The very goodness of God would move him to create 
beings who could and even would do wrong, rather than 
to exclude sin from the universe by limiting his creation 
to lower orders of beings. 

What we seem to be required to teach is, that God pur- 
posed to originate a universe which would contain beings 
who could do wrong as well as right, and to use none but 
moral means in preventing them from doing wrong. His 
purpose included a permission of moral evil in this sense 
only, that he would not by natural or physical means ex- 
clude it from the universe, but not in the sense that he 
authorized any one to commit sin, or left any moral being 
in doubt concerning his hatred of sin. 

Food for thought on this subject may be found in many 


120 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of the great writers of our own day. Dorner remarks, “ Only 
this can be said that, after the race had sinned, God could not 
have willed to uphold it by its reproduction of itself with its 
sinful character, unless the upholding of our sinful race were 
a less evil than its destruction, and so a relative good” (II., 
p. 162). “It is conceivable,” says Goldwin Smith, “that by 
being [becoming] ever so little better than himself the most 
abject of mankind may cast into the moral treasury a mite 
more precious in the estimation of the Creator of our moral 
being than the spotless virtue of a born seraph.” And 
George Macdonald remarks that, “ The will of the brooding 
Spirit must be a grand one, indeed, to enclose so much of 
what cannot be its will, and turn all to its purpose of eternal 
good ! Our knowledge of humanity, how much more our 
knowledge of the Father of it, is moving as yet but in the 
first elements” (George MacDonald in “Sir Gibbie”). 

The doctrine of the divine purpose tends to fill the soul 
with adoring thoughts of God, and humble thoughts of 
self. Yet it is so apprehended by many as to make them 
feel that God is a hard master. “ The existence of the 
smallest amount of pain and evil would seem to show that 
he is either not perfectly benevolent, or not all-powerful.” 
But, as we have seen, this is a hasty judgment. The sub- 
ject is therefore one to be studied with the utmost candor 
and reverence, and taught with the greatest care, in order 
that misapprehension may be prevented. 

IV. That God has Created All Things through the 
Word 

1. The first act of God in carrying into effect his pur- 
pose must have been an act of creation, that is to say, an 
act originating finite being and so increasing the sum total 
of real being. For this is what is meant by creating, in 
distinction from shaping, combining, organizing, or un- 
folding. And such action seems to be ascribed to God by 
the sacred writers: John 17:5, 24; Eph. 1:4; — Mark 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 


21 


x 3 •' I 9 > Gen. i : i ; Rev. io: 6; — John 1:2; Heb. 11:3. 
It appears, therefore, that there was a time when the 
worlds were not yet founded, that they were founded or 
established by God through the Word, and that things 
visible were not made out of things that appear. The 
most obvious interpretation of John 1 : 2 is, that every- 
thing but God has been brought into being by divine 
energy in the person of the eternal Word. Not merely 
its form but its entire being is due to divine action. Yet 
it would be going too far to insist that this is the only 
possible interpretation. 

2. But against this view of creation two objections 
have been urged : 

(1) That it is unthinkable, and therefore cannot be 
true. This objection is not decisive, for many things are 
credible which are nevertheless unthinkable. This is 
true in mathematics, according to the highest authorities, 
and also in real life, unless we deny the freedom of the 
human will. 

(2) That it supposes a limit to the being of God, and 
so pronounces him finite. On the contrary it declares his 
power and wisdom to be unlimited, and abridges no per- 
fection of his nature. De Pressense remarks that, “ ab- 
solute liberty can certainly put limits on itself, can even 
assert itself by voluntarily accepting the limitations 
imposed by the created liberty of which it is itself the 
source.” 1 

Self-limitation is an, exercise of liberty, not an infringe- 
ment of it, and can be easily distinguished from limita- 
tion originated by another. But creation does imply that 
God is not the sum total of being. It rejects pantheism. 

3. The extent of creation is so great as to baffle imagi- 
nation. The microscope and the telescope reveal equally 
wonderful ranges of being. Apparently there are no 
limits in either direction that can be reached by human 

1 “A Study of Origins,” p. 101. 


122 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


intelligence. And in the physical universe all parts seem 
to be bound together, so as to constitute a system. 
Science informs us that there is probably a genetic con- 
nection between atoms and worlds, and between the 
lowest forms of organized matter on earth and the 
highest, between the amoeba and man, at least, as physical 
organisms. 

4. But there are numerous intimations in the Word of 
God of extra-human and perhaps extra-organic beings, 
called angels, 1 2 who are not genetically related to one 
another, or indeed to any living creature ; Matt. 22 : 30. 
They are spoken of as intelligent, moral beings, mes- 
sengers of God, able to influence men, and created, prob- 
ably, before the earth became habitable ; Job. 38 : 7. They 
are bound to other parts of creation by spiritual rather 
than by natural ties, by reason rather than by gravita- 
tion. 

V. That God Upholds All Things through the 
Word 

1. All created things owe their continuance in being to 
the power of God. This proposition implies that all 
created things have a being or nature of their own, and 
that this being or nature is dependent on God. It is 
therefore opposed to a pantheistic, dualistic, or deistic 
view of God’s relation to the world. For pantheism em- 
braces the world in the idea of God, while dualism 
regards the world as uncreated and antagonistic to God, 
and deism pronounces the world, once created, perfect 
and self-sufficient. We believe the world to be in some 
sense real, but at the same time created and dependent. 

2. Yet it is very difficult to explain what is meant by 
this dependence of the universe on God. The language 
of Scripture is general but positive: Job 10:12; Ps. 

1 See Appendix to Part Second, page 186. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 1 23 

104 : 29, 30 ; Isa. 40 : 26, 29 ; Neh. 9:6; Acts 17 : 28 ; Heb. 
1:3; Col. 1:17. The sacred writers do not represent 
preservation as equivalent to a perpetual act of creation, 
but they distinguish it from simple oversight, care, or 
direction. God’s power is a factor in everything that 
exists. 

3. Prof. Harris (S.) remarks that, “force, independent of 
being, is unthinkable. Its existence necessarily carries our 
minds to a Being transcending matter, i. e., to God. God is 
immanent in nature because it depends on God for its exis- 
tence and for all its powers. No analogy of the action of 
finite beings on one another is adequate to explain the in- 
finite in and through the finite. Sir Isaac Newton compares 
God’s immanence in nature to the immanence of the spirit in 
the body, sustaining and directing energies; Edwards, to the 
action of light on a portrait, sustaining it in existence.” Prof. 
Lotze says, “ The proposition of religion is : Preservation is 
continual creation. It is not conceivable that this can be 
intended to mean : the world of the next instant is, as to its 
content, entirely new and foreign to that of the preceding 
instant. So far from this, we naturally accept the assump- 
tion that, in the divine activity, there is unity and coherence; 
and, for this reason, the creative act of the next instant also 
is a consequence of that of the preceding. But nevertheless, 
the aforesaid proposition would deny that the world of one 
instant perpetuates itself by its own agency and by its general 
laws into the next instant.” 1 

In the illustration by Edwards, the picture has no 
color or reality as a picture without the light, but it has 
that which is real and necessary to its existence as a 
picture with the light. The pigment and the light are 
related to each other, and both are necessary to the exist- 
ence of the visible portrait. In regard to Lotze’s state- 
ment, we can only say that, so far as history and obser- 
vation can be trusted, religion does not affirm that, “ Pre- 
servation is continual creation.” Neither Jesus Christ 


1 “ Phil, of Religion,” p. 93. 


124 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


nor any one of his Apostles is known to have enunciated 
such a proposition. Certainly religion affirms nothing of 
the kind. It is a purely speculative opinion. 

4. But the doctrine that all created beings are forever 
dependent on God for existence, having no absolute life 
of their own, not only agrees with a certain feeling of 
dependence which is instinctive in man, but also tends to 
unite the Christian’s heart to God by a sense of unspeak- 
able gratitude. He would not have it otherwise. He de- 
lights in the thought that underneath him are the ever- 
lasting arms. 

5. If it be objected, that the view here given makes 
God the upholder of moral evil, since he upholds the 
evil-doer at the very instant and in the very act of evil- 
doing, it may be replied, (1) that God upholds what he 
has created, namely, the free moral agent ; but he neither 
upholds, nor has he created, evil-doing. His energy in 
respect to the creation and conservation of moral beings 
is efficient, but his energy in respect to their wrong doing 
is merely quiescent. He forbids, but does not dynami- 
cally prevent. (2) That the nature of moral government 
appears to justify, if not to require, the very course which 
God pursues; for to give a sinner time to repent is to 
give him time which he may use in further sin. And 
(3) that God forbids wrong-doing, and brings a vast 
amount of moral influence to bear against it. 


VI. That God Provides for the Fulfillment of his 
Eternal Purpose 1 

1. The word “providence” signifies primarily, fore- 
sight; but the idea of forethought and provision for the 

1 See Johnson (E. H.), “ An Outline of Systematic Theology,” 
p. 101 f. ; Clarke (W. N.), “Outline of Christian Theology,” p. 
133 f. ; Strong (A. H.), “Systematic Theology,” p. 207 f. ; Smith 
(H. B.), “System of Christian Theology,” p. 106 f. ; Flavel (J.), 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 125 

future is closely connected with that of foresight; so 
closely, indeed, that, in theological language, the term 
providence means, “ divine supervision, the care and 
guardianship of God over his creatures.” 1 

Providence presupposes a plan for reaching an end, 
and is the method of action by which that end is reached. 
“ I believe,” says Francis Bacon, “ that God . . . 

doth accomplish and fulfill his divine will in all things, 
great and small, singular and general, as fully and 
exactly by providence as he could by miracle.” 

2. According to Paul, God’s providence has respect to 
all mankind, for “ he made of one blood every nation of 
men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having fixed ap- 
pointed periods, and the bounds of their habitations that 
they should seek God, if perhaps they might feel after 
him and find him, although he is not far from each one 
of us,” Acts 17: 26, 27. According to the writer of the 
Eightieth Psalm, it has special reference to his chosen 
people, for God is addressed as the Shepherd of Israel — 
compare Deut. 32 : 8-14 — and, according to the writer of 
the Twenty-third Psalm, it is equally concerned with the 
welfare of every saint, for he sings, “ The Lord is my 
Shepherd, I shall not want.” An Oriental shepherd was 
the leader, the guardian, and the feeder of his flock. 
Compare with this Old Testament language the words of 
Jesus, Matt. 11:28-30; and John 10: 11, 14, 15. Yea, 
more, God’s personal care provides for every beast of 

“ Divine Conduct ; or, the Mystery of Providence ” ; Davidson 
(A. D.), “Lectures, Expository and Practical, on the Book of 
Esther”; Sherlock (W.), “A Discourse concerning the Divine 
Providence”; Charnock ( S. ) , “The Providence of God,” South 
(R.), I. VII., “All Contingencies under God’s Providence”; 
Bushnell (H.), “ Every Man’s Life a Plan of God,” in “ Sermons 
of the New Life”; Zwingli (U.), “ De Providentia Dei”; Bush- 
nell (H.), “Moral Uses of Dark Things”; and the principal 
works on Systematic Theology. 

1 Century Dictionary. 


126 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the earth and bird of the air and flower of the field, Matt. 
6 : 26-30. 

3. Indeed, it is self-evident that, whatever is worth 
creating is worthy of oversight and control, whether it 
be valuable for what it is in itself, or for its relation to 
something else of intrinsic worth. And so the Psalmist 
calls upon the sun and moon and stars, upon fire and hail, 
snow and vapor, upon stormy winds and mountains, 
fruitful trees and all cedars, to praise the name of the 
Lord: 148:3-9. Says Prof. George I. Chace, “ Accord- 
ing to the most advanced teachings of science, the pri- 
mary constituents of matter are not mere atoms, as here- 
tofore supposed, whose existence demands no explana- 
tion, but elaborately organized structures, miniature sys- 
tems of worlds, as much to be accounted for as the larger 
systems built from them.” 1 If this be so, what limit can 
be put to the providence of God? If infinitesimal worlds 
are related to colossal worlds and systems of worlds, and 
if God is the Author of them all, we are constrained to 
believe that his foresight and goodness are perpetually 
concerned with the ongoing of every part, however mi- 
nute, as well as with the ongoing of the infinitely com- 
plex and magnificent whole, and to cry out with the 
inspired poet, “All thy works praise thee ” : Ps. 145 : 10. 

4. The providence of God embraces many particulars, 

some of which relate especially to the spiritual welfare 
of men, for example: (1) God’s direct action on the 
hearts of men, Matt. 18:20; John 20:21; Rom. 5:5; 
Gal. 5:22; Phil. 2:13; 4:13.’ (2) His cooperation 

with them in prayer, Rom. 8:26. (3) His action 

adapted to the moral state of the one affected by it, Gen. 
18: 20, 21 ; Josh. 3 : 15, 16; John 3:10; Heb. 2: 4. (4) 
His power overruling the wickedness of men, Gen. 
50: 20; Ex. 3 : 19-21 ; Ps. 76: 11. (5) Employing angels 

and demons, Ps. 103:20; Matt. 18:10; Acts 5:19; 

1 “A Memorial of,” p. 112. 


GOD IN NATURE AND IN SCRIPTURE 1 27 

Heb. 1:14; 2 Sam. 24: 1. (6) And utilizing irrational 

creatures and the elements of nature, Ex. 8: 12, 13, 16, 
19; Josh. 10: 11 ; Joel 1:4-12. 

In providence God sometimes reveals the principles of 
his moral government by rules adapted in form to the 
present condition of those addressed. Thus the laws 
of the Mosaic economy in respect to domestic servitude, 
divorce for any cause but one, revenge for injury to 
kindred, and distinction of clean animals from unclean, 
were adapted to the condition of the people as a theoc- 
racy, but are not suited to men of all nations and times. 

Again, so close a connection unites all parts and events 
of the created universe that God’s government must be 
providential over every part and event, or over nothing 
at all. Hence the propriety of distinguishing between a 
general and a special providence is doubtful. It would * 
be a gain in point of accuracy, if we were to characterize 
the providence of God as special in the case of miracles, 
as gracious in respect to Christians, and as particular in 
all things. 

In a letter to Prof. Gray, Charles Darwin asks : “ Do you 
believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God de- 
signed that that particular swallow should snap up that 
particular gnat at that particular instant ? ” Why not ? In 
his later years Darwin confesses, “ My mind seems to have 
become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of 
large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the 
atrophy of that part of the brain alone on which the higher 
tastes depend, I cannot conceive. The loss of these tastes is 
a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the 
intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by en- 
feebling the emotional part of our nature.” Jesus Christ 
taught that even the hairs of our heads are numbered by the 
heavenly Father, and that he cares for the sparrow, the lily, 
and, by parity of reason, for everything he has made. 

5. No other doctrine of the divine government satis- 


128 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


fies the Christian heart as does the scriptural one, that 
it is throughout providential ; and it is strikingly sug- 
gested by the words of a pagan writer, “ If God will, you 
are safe, though you swim on a straw ” ; unless, indeed, 
these words overlook the natural means which God so 
constantly employs in providing for the weal of his crea- 
tures. Philosophical thought is tending also at the pres- 
ent time to recognize the intimate relation of God to all 
existence and action, to all beings and events. 


PART SECOND 

MANKIND, THEIR NATURE, CHARACTER 
AND CONDITION 


129 






















































‘ 





















■ - : 


























PART SECOND 


MANKIND , 1 THEIR NATURE, CHARACTER AND 
CONDITION 


CHAPTER I 


NATURE OF MANKIND 



HE second division of Christian theology treats of 


mankind, who are by nature bipartite, racial, re- 
productive, social, and moral ; in character sinful ; and 
in condition lost, yet recoverable. 


I. Men are by Nature Bipartite 


In other words, their nature is a synthesis of the only 
two forms of being known to us, the spiritual and the 
material, a microcosm of the universe, being on the one 
side an image of God, and on the other an image of in- 
animate nature. For proof, consider: 

1 Hopkins (M.), “An Outline Study of Man,” 1876; “ The 
Scriptural Idea of Man,” 1883; Anderson (J.), “What is Man? 
His Origin, Life, History, and Future Destiny as Revealed in the 
Word of God”; Lee (J. W.), “The Making of a Man” — 
“ physical, social, intellectual, moral, aesthetic, spiritual ” ; Heard 
(J. B.), “The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit, Soul, Body, 
applied to illustrate the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth, 
the. Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body”; Laidlaw (J.), 
“The Bible Doctrine of Man”; Delitzsch (F.), “A System of 
Biblical Psychology”; Davis (N. K.), “Elements of Psychol- 
ogy”; Hill (D. J.), “Elements of Psychology”; Quatrefages 
(J. L. A.), “The Human Species”; Darwin (C.), “The De- 
scent of Man”; Drummond (H.), “The Ascent of Man”; 
Haeckel (E.), “ The Evolution of Man.” 


J 3 2 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


1. The prevalent representation of the Scriptures. For 
although we cannot assume that the sacred writers give a 
scientific account of men as living beings, we are entitled 
to believe that they were qualified to speak of human 
nature, in so far as it is related to the moral and religious 
condition of mankind, here and hereafter. The following 
passages are considered to be fairly representative of 
New Testament language on the subject before us : Matt. 
10:28; 26:41, cf. Mark 14:38; Luke 12:22 f . ; Acts 
2:27; Rom. 2:28, 29; 1 Cor. 5:3, 5; 6:16 f. ; 7:34; 
2 Cor. 7:1; Col. 2:5; Heb. 12:9; James 2:26; 1 Pet. 
2: 11 ; 3: 18; 4: 19. And these with similar statements 
make it certain that the words “ soul ” and “ spirit ” are 
often used interchangeably, to connote the spiritual side 
of man’s nature in distinction from the bodily side, and 
lead to the conclusion that human nature consists of but 
two parts, body and soul, or flesh and spirit. 

2. The phenomena of consciousness. There is nothing, 
it is believed, in human experience which may not be 
traced as readily to two essential principles as to three. 
It is as easy to believe that the spirit has direct connection 
with the body as to suppose that it has connection with 
it indirectly, through an intermediate substance or power ; 
to suppose that one and the same spiritual entity has a 
wide range of susceptibilities, passions, and powers, some 
higher and some lower, as to suppose two spiritual en- 
tities have this range. 

“ Instead of looking in man for an animal soul, into which, 
as a wild stock of inferior nature, a distinctively higher shoot 
has been grafted, we ought rather from the first to see in 
the living human mind a peculiar being, whose characteristic 
nature is at work even in the simplest and lowest manifesta- 
tions of its activity, though its full significance and the inter- 
val by which it is separated from the animal soul appear most 
distinctly in the final results of its development.” 1 

1 Lotze (H.), “ Microcosmus,” I., pp. 532, 535, 536. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 133 

3. But there are a few expressions of Scripture which 
have been thought to teach the tripartite nature of man : 
viz., 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12; Phil. 1:27; Lu. 1:47; 
1 Cor. 15 : 44. 

Only three of them, however, deserve serious examina- 
tion,' namely, the first two and the last. The first is the 
clearest, and Ellicott, an admirable expositor, pronounces 
it “ a distinct enunciation of three component parts of the 
nature of man.” This is unquestionably the most ob- 
vious view of the Apostle’s meaning, but we cannot think 
it is correct. DeWette understands the language to be 
“ rhetorical,” used for the sake of impression, of em- 
phasis, and not for instruction as to the constituents of 
man’s nature. Compare Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30. It is 
a case of repetition, of using two words in place of one, 
in order to hold the mind a little longer on the nobler 
side of man’s nature. 

The second should be translated, “ piercing even to a 
dividing of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow”; 
not dividing between soul and spirit, between joints and 
marrow, but a sword which pierces and divides the soul 
itself and the spirit itself ; and as the marrow is conceived 
of as more secret and inaccessible than the joints, so is 
the spirit conceived of, probably, as more secret and in- 
accessible than the soul. Tholuck defines “ soul,” in this 
place, as “ the spirit according to its natural side,” and 
“ spirit ” as the “ spirit according to its eternal side.” 

The last passage reads, “ it is sown a psychical body, 
it is raised a pneumatical body.” But a psychical body 
here means a body adapted to the spirit in its present 
condition and life, while a pneumatical body means a 
body adapted to the' spirit in its eternal condition and life. 
For as we cannot suppose Paul to say that our present 
bodies are made of psychical substance, that is, of the 
same substance as our souls, so we cannot suppose him 
to say that our future bodies will be made of spiritual 


*34 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


substance, that is, of the same kind of substance as our 
spirits. He describes the two kinds of bodies in view of 
their functions, not of their essence. 

If, however, the nature of man be tripartite, we may 
consider the third principle mere life, like that of animals, 
since the word 'yjrvxv is several times used in that sense. 
But so understood, it would perish with the body, rather 
than be, as some have conjectured, a rational substance 
which environs the spirit and survives the dissolution of 
the body. 

4. Yet the words soul and spirit are not strictly 
synonymous in Scripture. If they do not connote two 
distinct parts of human nature, as trichotomists believe, 
they denote the same part as seen in different lights, 
or as performing different functions, for in certain con- 
nections one of them is almost always used, and in other 
connections the other. What then are the biblical uses 
of the two words? By a thorough study of all the pas- 
sages in which they occur, Prof. D. R. Goodwin finds 
( 1 ) “ That spirit and soul are used indiscriminately 
for the whole inner man.” (2) “ That the same pred- 
icates, the same affections, are ascribed to both.” (3) 
“ That ‘ soul and body ’ or ‘ spirit and body ’ stand 
alike for the whole man.” (4) “ That ‘ spirit ’ and 
* flesh ’ have sometimes a special contrast, but not as 
being constituent parts of our natural constitution.” 
(5) “ That ‘ heart ’ is used interchangeably with ‘ spirit ’ 
or with ‘ soul. ’ ” (6) “ That ‘ spirit ’ and ‘ mind ’ are con- 
trasted as well as conjoined.” (7) “ That sin, pollution, 
perversion, as well as righteousness and purity, are pre- 
dicated alike of soul, spirit, heart, and mind.” (8) 
“ That life after death, future punishment and salvation, 
are predicated alike of the soul and of the spirit.” (9) 
“ That soul and spirit are both used for the principle of 
life, the animating principle in the body.” (10) “That 
both terms are used for the life of beasts, and also in 


mankind: nature, character, condition 135 

respect to God in the New Testament as well as in the 
Old.” ( 1 1 ) “That both are used to denote the seat of 
the affections, but also the rational conscious mind and 
the proper personal self.” On the other hand, the special 
uses of spirit are : “ a. To indicate the Spirit of God — the 
Holy Spirit, b. To indicate His miraculous gifts, as in 
the Acts frequently, and sometimes elsewhere; for in- 
stance, in 1 Cor. 14: 12. c. To denote devils or demons, 
‘ evil’ or ‘ foul’ spirits, and also good angels, ‘ ministering 
spirits.’ d. To denote temper, disposition, character: as 
‘ ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of ’ ; Luke 
9 : 55, 1 ‘a meek and quiet spirit; ’ ” 1 Pet. 3 : 4 . 2 

Hatch says that, “(1) KapSta, 7 rvevfm, and if/vxrj are capable 
of being interchanged as translations of the same Hebrew 
words. (2) That consequently the lines of distinction be- 
tween them, whatever they may be, are not sharply drawn. 
(3) That a survey of the predicates which are attached to 
each of them shows a similar impossibility of limiting them 
to special groups of mental phenomena, with the exceptions 
that ( a ) KapSia is most commonly used of will and inten- 
tion, ( b ) XV^ V appetite and desire.” 

5. The mutual relations of the two parts of man's 
nature are most intimate and , as far as this life is con- 
cerned, inseparable. The action of each depends upon 
the other. All thinking, feeling, and willing are attended 
by movements of the brain. And, on the other hand, 
movements of the brain appear to influence the actions 
of the mind. The correlation, the interdependence, the 
interaction, are certain and wonderful. But leadership 
may safely be assigned to the soul. 

“ The body as an organ of the soul is the result of the in- 
forming, creating activity of the soul itself. The soul is im- 
manent in the body, not by virtue of the body as mere body, 
but because, being transcendent, it has expressed and mani- 

1 But the text is uncertain. 

2 Hatch (E.), “Essays in Biblical Greek,” III., p. 94 f. 


, 136 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

fested its nature in the body ... It is a living and active 
force which has formed, and is constantly forming, the body, 
as its own mechanism.” 1 

The language of Prof. Dewey merits close attention. 
Whether the soul be strictly organific or not, its condi- 
tion has oftentimes surprising influence over the body. 
“ A merry heart is a good medicine ; but a broken spirit 
dries up the bones ” : Prov. 17:22. Many a man dies 
because he thinks himself dying. Many a man lives 
because he feels that he must and will live. Trust in 
God, trust in a physician, trust in a medicine, trust in 
a philosophy, trust in a relic, trust, confidence, assurance, 
whether based on real or imaginary grounds, is a wonder- 
ful restorative of health. It is sheer skepticism to deny 
that in millions of instances bodily life or death depends 
on the soul’s condition. Hope is life, despair death. 
This truth, not the truth of its ontology, has given to 
“ Christian science ” its power to win adherents. But, 
on the other hand, the body is not an illusion. It will 
not live forever without food. To pray for daily bread is 
a Christian duty, so long as one lives in an animal body. 
If Christian scientists were to follow their doctrine con- 
sistently and treat the body as non-real, not one of them 
would be alive on earth at the end of a single year. 

II. Men Are by Nature Racial 

By this we mean that all varieties of mankind belong 
to one race or species. 2 This we infer : 

1. From the language of Holy Scripture : Gen. 1:27; 
2:7, 15 f. ; 6:7, 8; 7: 21 ; 8:1, f . ; Acts 17:26; Rom. 

1 Prof. Dewey in Bib. Sac. for 1886, p. 260. 

2 Muller (M.), “Lectures on the Science of Language,” 
Series I. and II.; Burnouf (E.), “The Science of Religions,” 
“ Revue des Deux Mondes,” 1867, 1868; Darwin (C.), “Origin of 
Species” and “Descent of Man”; Drummond (H.), “The 
Ascent of Man.” 


mankind: nature, character, condition 137 

5 : 12, f. ; i Cor. 15:21, 22. This language appears to be 
sufficiently plain, and we are aware of no good reason 
for doubting that the writers believed in the unity of 
mankind. The word “ blood ” (aqiiaro?), in Acts 17:26, 
is probably an addition to the original text, but its 
absence does not weaken the testimony of Paul to the 
derivation of all men from Adam. The words of the 
Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and to the 
Corinthians put his belief beyond question. Moreover, 
the theological bearing of the context in both these 
instances forbids us to doubt the import of his teaching. 

Yet Prof. Winchell, in his “ Preadamites,” insists that 
there are evident proofs in the early chapters of Genesis of 
men before Adam and Eve. These proofs he finds, (1) In 
Cain’s fear of being killed, if cast out as a fugitive and 
wanderer, Gen. 4 : 13, 14. But as Cain was probably more 
than a hundred years old (see Gen. 5:3), he may have had 
occasion to fear the vengeance of his brothers who were 
shocked at his horrible crime. (2) In Cain’s marriage, which 
would have been incest if he had taken for his wife a younger 
sister. But Prof. Winchell’s theory of Preadamites only car- 
ries the difficulty back to an earlier date. It does not remove 
it, except by supposing that more than one pair was created 
at the same time and in the same region — of which there is 
no evidence. (3) In Cain’s building a city, a work too great 
for one man with only a wife and child to assist him, Gen. 
4: 17. But We are not informed how long it was before Cain 
built his city or how large an affair it was. (4) In the ex- 
pression, “ Sons of God,” in Gen. 6 : 2, which is best explained 
by taking it to mean men of unknown ancestry who took for 
wives daughters of Adam, or “ of the Adam,” as Prof. Win- 
chell translates DINH. To us it seems more natural to sup- 
pose that “ the sons of God ” were religious men of the line 
of Seth, and “ the daughters of men,” ungodly women of the 
family of Cain. The art and wealth of the world appear to 
have belonged at that time to the descendants of Cain. (5) 
In the genealogical table of Genesis, chapters 10 and 11, which 


138 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

is limited to the peoples known to the writer, and was not 
intended to embrace all branches of the human race. This 
may be admitted, without finding in it any evidence of Pre- 
adamite tribes or families. We do not see that the Scriptures 
afford satisfactory proof, or distinct suggestion, of men liv- 
ing before Adam and Eve. 

2. The racial unity of mankind may also he inferred 
from their natural similarity the world over. Their 
anatomical structure is nearly the same everywhere. The 
difference between the highest and the lowest types of 
men are said by competent critics to be less than the 
differences betwen varieties of the same species in some 
of the lower animals. Their physiological characteristics 
lead to the same view. All races of men are fruitful with 
one another; the duration of pregnancy is the same in 
all ; the mean frequency of the pulse, and the normal 
temperature of the body are the same. Their patholog- 
ical liabilities are the same in all nations. In like cir- 
cumstances they are liable to like diseases. But none 
of the lower animals are subject to all these and to no 
others. There is also a difference between the blood 
cells of men and those of brutes. The mental powers 
of men are everywhere the same in kind, the world over. 
This is an argument of superlative force. And at pres- 
ent, the tendency of scientific speculation is decidedly 
favorable to the oneness of the human race, but not, 
perhaps, in favor of the date of its appearance on earth, 
which is suggested to a majority of readers by the words 
of Genesis. 

3. The formation of the human body from the dust 
of the ground by a process of evolution, extending 
through millions of years, is asserted by biologists to rest 
on good probable evidence; but few of them claim the 
same degree of evidence for the soul’s derivation from 
animal instinct. The conscious self is a mystery to 
science; so also is life. Obviously, the language of 


mankind: nature, character, condition 139 

Genesis is reconcilable with the scientific hypothesis of 
a slow and evolutionary formation of the human body. 
Nor, unless chronology forbids, is there any biblical 
ground for denying the differentiation of mankind into 
several families by evolution. 


III. As Racial, Men Are Reproductive 

This is implied in the term employed to describe them. 
Men are homogeneous. A genetic relation binds together 
our first parents and all their descendants. And so there 
is a fact or law of heredity to be reckoned with in the 
study of theology. Immense benefits come to men as 
social, moral, and religious beings from their kinship 
as members of a race, but evils, also, which must be con- 
sidered in the sequel. No doubt is entertained concern- 
ing the transmission of physical life from parents to 
children. Procreation of the bodily organism is con- 
ceded; but is the same true of human souls or spirits? 
Whence have they been derived since the creation of 
Adam? Three answers have been given to this ques- 
tion, by pre-creation, by co-creation, by procreation. 
Each of these answers may be criticised briefly, and the 
best of them accepted, till we find a better. 

1. Pre-creation , or the pre-temporal creation of human 
souls has been asserted as a reasonable and probable 
hypothesis by a few great Christian teachers. Origen 
believed that the disparity of condition between men at 
the beginning of their earthly life must be due to a dif- 
ference of moral conduct in a previous existence. All 
souls were created pure and equal. But many fell into 
sin, who were not, however, wholly lost to goodness. 
These were sent to the earth and united with material 
bodies, each in a condition answering to his former sins. 
Emanuel Kant, in the interest of moral accountability 
on the part of men, believed in a timeless existence of the 


140 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


soul, which as a noumenon is free, while as a phenom- 
enon, it is not. The fall occurred in that mysterious 
existence which he calls timeless. Julius Muller, in his 
able work on “ The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” adopts 
the same view. The inclination of men to sin in the 
present life is due to a free timeless act of transgres- 
sion. Edward Beecher, in his “ Conflict of the Ages,” 
maintains the preexistence of human souls as the only 
key to a reasonable theodicy. 

But against this hypothesis may be urged the following 
considerations : — 

(1) We have no consciousness of having either lived 
or sinned in a previous state. Memory is silent in re- 
spect to all this. (2) A timeless existence of souls is 
wholly inconsistent with finite life. (3) The Scriptures 
suggest an entirely different reason for our bias to evil, 
namely, our vital connection with Adam and Eve. 

2. Co-creation, or the creation of human souls along 
with the generation of their bodies . This is described 
by Lotze, as follows : “ At the place where, and at the 
moment when, the germ of the organic being is formed 
in the coherent system of the physical course of nature, 
this fact furnishes the incitement or moving reason which 
induces the all-comprehending One Being ... to beget 
from himself besides, as a consistent supplement to such 
fact, the soul belonging to this organism. 1 Instead of 
the words “ to beget from himself,” which agree with 
Lotze’s monism, others would insert the words “ to 
create.” 

This hypothesis is defended as both scriptural and 
rational. The statements of Scripture most confidently 
alleged are these: Num. 16:22; 27:16; Eccl. 12:7; 
Isa. 57:16; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9. The last passage 
is adduced by many with an assurance that it is incapable 


1 “Outlines of Psychology,” p. 117. 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 141 

of any other just explanation. The others might cer- 
tainly be accounted for by God’s special and direct agency 
in imparting to Adam his spiritual nature, and perhaps 
by his mediate agency in pro-creation — the soul being 
mentioned in every case because it is that part of human 
nature which bears the divine likeness. The passage 
in Hebrews is not so easily expounded on any other 
hypothesis than that of co-creation. It is, however, 
noticeable that the passage does not say “ our spirits,” 
but “ the spirits,” and Bleek, one of the ablest inter- 
preters of Hebrews, says that it is most probable the 
writer meant “ the Father of all spiritual beings, who is 
also at the same time the only Father of believers and 
they his sons, in so far as his spirit is in them, and they 
have something more than a natural life (cf. Rom. 
8: 14 ff.; Gal. 4:6 f . ; Heb. 2:10 ff.) ” 

The hypothesis is also defended as accounting for the 
individuality of every new-born soul. It does so, with- 
out doubt, and this argument is not to be overlooked. 
But on the other hand it does not agree so well as the 
third hypothesis with the transmission of ethnical, na- 
tional, tribal, and even parental traits of mind and 
temper. 1 

3. Pro-creation , or generation of human souls. This 
hypothesis is maintained by such arguments as these. 

(1) The supposed process of reproduction in the case 
of lower animals. For in them the immaterial prin- 
ciple of life, endued with instinct and some degree of 
intelligence, comes from the parents, and analogy justifies 
the assumption of a similar process in the case of men. 

(2) The ordinary phraseology of Scripture favors this 
hypothesis, for children as such, and not as organisms 
of flesh and blood, are commonly represented as born of 
their parents. Exceptions to this manner of speaking — 

1 Hodge (C.), “Systematic Theology,” II., pp. 70-76. 


142 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


as Heb. 12:9, and John 3:6 — may be easily explained, 
and are in fact very rare. (3) The close connection 
which is affirmed to exist between the sin of Adam and 
that of his posterity: Rom. 5 : 12 f. and 1 Cor. 15:22, is 
accounted for by this hypothesis. (4) The completeness 
of Christ’s human nature is explained by it. We incline 
to the third hypothesis. 1 

4. The question as to the duration of human life can 
be answered only provisionally at this point. If the 
distinction, which has been made between the body and 
soul is correct, we are not warranted in affirming that 
natural death* terminates the conscious existence of man. 
Closely connected as the two parts of human nature cer- 
tainly are, the destiny of the nobler part is not bound 
indissolubly to that of the inferior part. We are author- 
ized by the Scriptures to believe that it is possible to kill 
the body without destroying the soul, and are instructed 
that both good and bad men are conscious after death, 
Matt. 10: 28; Luke 16: 19 f. More than this they teach 
the endless existence of men, and at least imply the 
natural immortality of their souls, Matt. 25:46; Cor. 
15:44, 46, 49, 53, 54. 

But, apart from the Scriptures, the mental, the moral 
and the spiritual powers of mankind point to their future 
and eternal existence. 

Hermann Lotze says, “ I doubt whether a view which 
regards the individual as a merely passing phase in the activ- 
ity of an Infinite Substance, could have any logical reason 
for attributing to such a nonentity any obligation to maintain 
a dignity belonging to it in its individual and transitory char- 
acter — a dignity which it should or could maintain by its 

1 Shedd (W. G. T.), “Dogmatic Theology,” II., ch. I.; 
Strong (A. H.), “Systematic Theology,” p. 252, 253; Gerhart 
(E. V.), “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” II., p. 116 f. ; 
Biedermann (A. E.), Dogmatik, p. 192 f . ; Heppe (H.), Dog- 
matik, Sec. XI., p. 138 f. 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 143 

own spontaneous activity — whether such dignity ought not 
much rather to have its presence or absence laid to the 
account of the Infinite Substance itself.” 1 

Moral obligation presupposes a future life. And John 
Fiske writes, 

“We may be sure that the creature whose intelligence 
measures pulsations of molecules and unravels the secret of 
the whirling nebula is no creature of a day, but the child of 
the universe, the heir of all the ages, in whose making and 
perfecting is to be found the consummation of God’s creative 
work.” 2 


IV. Men are by Nature Social 

They were intended to be companions in life. This 
might rationally be inferred from their racial origin 
and connection. But there is other evidence yet more 
convincing. By instinct, by affection, by necessary 
interdependence men are social. Solitary life is ex- 
ceptional, partial, and, on a large scale, impossible. In- 
fancy must have the mother’s care. Childhood can 
neither protect nor develop itself without parental help 
or its equivalent. And no considerable progress in 
mental or moral life is possible without the cooperation 
of many. Social life is normal, indispensable, and of 
transcendent importance to the welfare of mankind. 

The fervid language of Saisset scarcely exaggerates 
this thought. 

“ I find in my heart a whole treasury of sympathetic yearn- 
ings. I have need of men as men have need of me. In them 
as in me the object of love is first existence and life in their 
harmonious beauty, but especially the human person. I can- 
not remain imprisoned in my solitary self. I must enter into 
the souls of others, live in them, draw them towards me, and 
feel them live in my life. A sweet and irresistible sympathy 

1 Microcosmus, I., p. 100. 

2 See Ps. 139: 14-16. 


144 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

makes me feel what they feel, makes me sad with their sad- 
ness, happy in their happiness, doubly joyful when they are 
associated with my joy, almost insensible to sorrow when I 
feel it is shared, wanting to extend to them all the good that 
I have, to give them my strength, my thought, my whole 
soul; feeling myself richer, freer, stronger, and completer, 
the more I strip myself and impoverish myself for them.” 1 

But there is less need at the present time than ever 
before of insisting on the social nature of mankind. It 
will be enough to bear this fact in mind continually as 
we study the following topics. 

V. Men are by Nature Moral Beings, Subject to 
the Law of God 

To this fact reference was made in studying Nature’s 
revelation of God. But it must now be examined afresh. 
Men are moral beings because they can see that they 
ought to do this and ought not to do that. This percep- 
tion of duty presupposes an authoritative rule of action, 
a knowledge more or less complete of that rule, and a 
sense of power to obey it. In other words, we have to 
examine at this point: The moral law ; its source and its 
content. 

i. Its source. The moral law has been spoken of as 
being without source or author, eternal and unchangeable 
by its very nature. It would bind us to duty, if there were 
no God. And it is the only standard with which we can 
compare the character of God. We must know what 
righteousness is in order to pronounce him righteous. 

( i ) This is not so, for the existence of moral law de- 
pends on the existence of moral beings, especially of 
God. We can form no idea of it apart from the reason 
of such beings. If one could suppose God and all moral 
beings non-existent, he would have to suppose moral law 

1 “ Modern Pantheism,” II., p. 168, 


mankind: nature, character, CONDITION 145 

non-existent also. The source of moral law is the nature 
of God. “To suppose moral order self-existent and su- 
preme, is to give it the place of God, and make it higher 
than the Highest. To suppose it coexistent with God 
and independent of him, is to divide the sovereignty of 
the universe between abstract law and the Being consent- 
ing to it.” 1 

(2) The moral law may be spoken of, in the second 
place, as being eternal and unchangeable in the mind of 
God, who is at once the First Cause and the Supreme 
Reason. And this view of it is both natural and philo- 
sophical. For law supposes a lawgiver, order supposes 
a mind which has established it. Moreover, this view 
of it is truly theistic and simple. It denies self-existence 
to everything but God. It gives him the full honors of 
Creatorship. It permits us to worship him as sole and 
supreme. And it satisfies our mental desire for unity. 
“ If, as we rightly believe, our mind is in possession of 
innate, necessary truth, we certainly commit the first 
and greatest sin against the nature of that truth when 
we ascribe to it any origin which implies that even its 
content is not due solely to that Creative Power.” 2 

2. Its content. What does the law which expresses 
the eternal reason of God demand of men as their duty ? 

(1) According to the Scriptures, man was created in 
the image of God, and is under obligation to realize the 
purpose of his creation by being morally like his Maker : 
Gen. 1 : 26, 27 ; Lev. 1 1 : 45 ; Matt. 5 : 48 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 14-16 ; 
Eph. 4 : 2 \ ; Col. 3 : 10. When God’s moral nature is ap- 
pealed to as a reason for holiness, no other reason is 
brought to view. After the highest, any other would be 
weak. a. God is love, and man is required to love him 
supremely : Deut. 10 : 12 ; Matt. 22 137 ; 1 John 4 : 19. The 
duty thus enjoined is not that of honoring moral law or 

1 Secretan. 

2 Lotze, “ Microcosmus,” I., p. 389. 


146 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

order, but that of loving God who is a person and an 
impersonation of love; not that of reverence to moral 
right in the abstract, or even to righteousness as an at- 
tribute, but devotion of soul to the Person in whom holy 
love lives and reigns, b. In order to be like God, man 
is required to love his fellow-man as he loves himself : 
Matt. 22:39; Acts 17:26. This rule assumes that love 
or benevolence ought to be proportioned to the worth of 
the being loved; that a certain degree of self-love is 
natural and right; that men possess at least that degree 
of self-love, and that this is a proper measure of the love 
which they ought to have for their peers in the sight of 
God. 

It will be observed that the demand of God’s law is 
perfect holiness or perfect love. Are these then iden- 
tical, or must some distinction between them be recog- 
nized? Whatever is moral in the character of God is 
embraced in his holiness, whether it be inclination to good 
or aversion from evil, whether it be love of right or 
hatred of wrong. But is the word “ love ” equally com- 
prehensive and equally moral in its significance? In an- 
swer to these questions, it may be said, — (a) that the 
Scriptures do not use the words as synonyms : Ex. 
20:5, 6; Ps. 89: 14, 15; Deut. 7:9, 10. See also the 
following passages in the New Testament: John 3:16, 
36; Rom. 2:4-6; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 6:15-17; (b) 
that the common language of men distinguishes between 
the words. Everywhere men speak of rectitude, upright- 
ness, justness, as a quality of character distinguishable 
from kindness, goodness, benevolence, love; (c) that our 
moral judgment refuses to identify holiness and love. 
For the law of right, as thus revealed to conscience, 
though it recognizes the duty of love, affirms the duty 
of being just in preference to being generous, when it 
is impossible to be both just and generous. 

The maxim, suum cuiqae , has a moral basis independ- 


mankind: nature, character, condition 147 

ent of love ; it is seen by the reason itself to be right. Nay, 
the command, “ thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” 
assumes equality of nature in those to whom it is ad- 
dressed ; and between beings of the same grade that 
which is produced or earned belongs, in the first place, 
to him who produces or earns it. Another cannot right- 
fully take it from him without his consent, or withhold 
it from him beyond the time fixed for its return. Only 
that Being to whom he himself belongs, by right of crea- 
tion and preservation, can justly claim the product of 
his labor, with a claim superior to his own. 

(d) Accordingly the demand for holiness, or moral 
likeness to God, is broader than the demand for love, 
though the latter is practically equivalent to the former, 
since perfect love would always lead to holiness. The 
point at which human nature is morally weak is that of 
love to God and man. Were love perfect, conscience 
would be enthroned. It is lack of love, it is selfishness, 
which blinds the eye of our moral judgment, and moves 
us to disobey the will of God. 

(2) We may seek to discover the content of the moral 
law by another method. If we can ascertain the ends for 
which God made the worlds, we may be able to learn 
from them the law of moral action by which we ought 
to be coworkers with him in seeking those ends. Those 
ends may be called the summum bonum, or greatest 
possible good. What, then, is the greatest possible good 
in the eyes of a perfect Being? Is it character or hap- 
piness, or both these united ? 

a. It may be the production of righteous moral be- 
ings. Yet if this be the case, the whole material universe, 
together with the life of all beings that have no moral 
nature, must be looked upon as simply means to an end, 
or helps to the formation of holy character in men and 
angels, b. It may be the greatest possible happiness 
of the universe. Yet, if this be true, righteousness is 


148 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

only a means to an end, only a way to the highest good, 
but not a good in itself. Or, c. it may be that both 
righteousness and happiness are good in themselves, and 
therefore worthy ends for the action of God, that the 
summum bonum is the greatest possible holiness com- 
bined with the greatest possible happiness, d. We 
are disposed to accept the last view as preferable to either 
the first or the second, but to regard happiness, in the 
case of moral beings, as subordinate to holiness, perhaps 
as God’s encouragement to holiness. 

(a) But against this conclusion, it is sometimes said, 
that Christ himself reduces the whole divine law to the 
one requirement of love, and therefore love must be the 
sum total of righteousness. The inference is not a neces- 
sary one. For what Christ did was to point out the cen- 
tral principle of the law of God as taught by Moses and 
the prophets; and the more any man studies that law, 
the more clearly will he perceive that it was given for a 
practical purpose, requiring just what was wanting in 
man. For the only obstacle to perfect virtue in men is 
a want of supreme love to God and proper love to one’s 
neighbor. If love conditions and insures all right action , 
it is certainly the one thing which needs tb be required 
by a law whose aim is thoroughly practical ; for it is 
the one thing liable to be withheld, leaving conscience 
weak because alone. 

(b) Moreover, it is not easy to see how God can be 
actuated by good will to upright moral beings, because 
they are upright, without being displeased with sinful 
beings, because they are sinful. If righteousness is an 
end prized by him, unrighteousness must be opposed by 
him as evil. But righteousness and unrighteousness, 
holiness and sin, exist only in moral beings ; they are 
not entities, but qualities of the action and disposition of 
persons. Hence, they are evil only as the moral beings 
whom they represent are evil. And so, in the last 


mankind: NATURE, CHARACTER, CONDITION 149 

analysis, it is holy beings who are looked upon by God 
with complacency, and sought as an end worthy of all 
that is done by him in creation, and providence, and 
redemption. 

With creatures less highly endowed he may be pleased, 
because of the happiness which fills their life and which 
is the highest good of which they are capable, and also 
because of the purpose they serve in the education of 
mankind. 

If, then, on grounds of reason, we assume that the 
ends sought by the Supreme Ruler in creation and prov- 
idence are, first, holy and happy beings, since they are 
the best possible revelation of his own holiness and 
benevolence, and, secondly, other beings capable of enjoy- 
ment, we must conclude that men as moral beings, whose 
ideal character is one of likeness to himself, are bound 
to become, in the first place, morally like their Maker in 
purpose and action ; and, in the second place, to do all in 
their power to bring other moral beings to the same mind 
and action ; and, in the third place, to respect and serve 
with true kindness the welfare and comfort of all sen- 
tient creatures. 

Such is the law under which men are placed as moral 
beings, and there is reason to believe that it has been 
made known to them as fully and as rapidly as they have 
been willing to receive it. We are now to examine more 
closely the moral constitution of men as related to this 
divine law. 

3. What are the faculties concerned in moral action? 
If we divide the faculties of the human soul into those 
of knowing and feeling, desiring and willing, all these 
are concerned in moral action, and perhaps in every moral 
action. For to consider any one a moral being who is, 
strictly speaking, unable to perceive any difference be- 
tween what ought to be done and what ought not to be 
done, is plainly irrational. A man cannot be under obli- 


150 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

gation to do what he is utterly unable to know that he 
ought to do. Equally certain is it, that every moral action 
involves a feeling which is called moral, and that a being 
absolutely incapable of this peculiar feeling is not a com- 
plete moral being. Lastly, only voluntary action is per- 
sonal action and only personal action can be moral. But 
voluntary action is inconceivable without desire. If a 
human being can rightly be said to act when his action 
does not spring in any degree from his own desire that 
action is not properly his own, and cannot with reference 
to him be pronounced either right or wrong. But 
whether man’s nature is called moral because it has dis- 
tinct faculties for moral action, or because its general 
faculties operate in the sphere of right and wrong, is 
immaterial. In either case moral ^action and moral char- 
acter are distinguishable from everything else. 1 

4. In what part of moral action do we discover its 
moral quality ? Not in the outward or physical part of 
it, for that may be the same when moral quality is wholly 
wanting, or is either good or bad. Nor is the moral 
quality of an act always to be found in the nature of its 
proximate end. For a man may do something with the 
direct purpose of benefiting his neighbor when his ulti- 
mate object is to benefit himself. He may intend to 
benefit his neighbor, while his real motive for so doing 
is the hope of good to himself. The truly moral quality 
of an act must be found in the motive or inward reason 
for it. If that be righteousness, the honor of God, or 
the welfare of a fellow-man, the motive is good and the 
act in a personal respect is right. 

The great question therefore is this : Why is an act 
performed? What is the reason which leads the person 
to perform it? This cannot be separated from the ulti- 
mate object of the act, but it may often be wholly dis- 

1 See Smith (H. B.), “ System of Christian Theology,” p. 179; 
and Tefft (L.), “Institutes of Moral Philosophy,” p. 66 ff. 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 15 1 

tinct from its proximate object. In other words, the 
moral quality of an action depends upon what is chosen 
by the soul as its ultimate object in that act. If the soul 
enthrones God instead of self, and prefers his holy 
will to its own pleasure, its action is morally right ; but if 
it enthrones self instead of God, and prefers its own 
pleasure to righteousness or the welfare of others, its 
action is morally wrong. 

5. Is this inward preference of the soul voluntary or 
involuntary , free or not free ? This is the question of the 
ages. Is man free in the very act of choosing? Does he 
make his preference or choice of the object of his life and 
action? Or is his preference determined for him by the 
moral constitution or condition of his soul? To obtain 
an answer to this question we may appeal to the teach- 
ing of the Holy Scriptures, to the testimony of conscious- 
ness, and to the principle of causation or a sufficient 
reason. 

(1) The teaching of the Holy Scriptures may be 
brought under five heads : the actual sinfulness of men, 
their first sin in Eden, their moral weakness, their moral 
obligation, and God’s grace in relation to their weakness. 

a. The teaching of the Scriptures as to the actual sin- 
fulness of men is very clear and uniform. Men are not 
in their normal state as moral beings. They are habitu- 
ally and consciously wrongdoers. 

b. The teaching of the Scriptures as to the first sin 
represents it as the act of a man in his normal state, of 
a man who had been living in accord with God’s will, 
and whose moral tendencies had been good rather than 
evil. His sin must therefore have been in the strictest 
sense voluntary, self-originated, free. 

In saying this we do not forget the temptation which 
was encountered in Eden. But trial, testing, even 
through temptation by a wicked being, is no real excuse 
for sin. No apology can be made for a moral being who 


152 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

does what is known by him to be wrong. However flat- 
tering the suggestion of evil may be made, however 
skilfully the reasons for transgression may be presented, 
to do what is known to be forbidden by God is simply 
sinful and inexcusable. A fallen angel may have spoken 
through the serpent, but the evil of transgression was not 
thereby diminished; for the act is not represented as one 
which either Adam or Eve thought it right to do. Self- 
ishness was the only motive-principle appealed to by the 
tempter; and so they were self-condemned and ashamed 
after they had yielded to his suggestion. 

But a question may be asked at this point : Is it as easy 
to rise as it is to fall — to regain a high position as to for- 
feit it — to come back into the path of duty as to wander 
from it — to turn evil into good as to turn good into evil ? 
As Dr. Bushnell says, “ to mend an egg as to break it ” ? 
The change of a good moral state into a bad one does 
certainly suggest the possibility of changing a bad moral 
state into a good one: but, at best, dubiously, and only 
at the cost of stupendous effort. For, in the domain of 
spirit, strenuous exertion is the price of virtue, and no 
mortal can reach the heights of moral excellence without 
a struggle. On the other hand, simple inaction is often 
sin, and moderate resistance to evil a step towards ruin. 
Hence the power of a holy being to commit sin does not 
necessarily imply the power of a sinful being to cease 
doing evil and begin doing well without divine aid. 

c. The teaching of Scripture as to the moral weakness 
of sinful man: Jer. 13:23; 31:18; Eze. 36:26; Ps. 
5:10; Matt. 7:18; John 6:44, 65; 15:5; Eph. 2:10; 
Phil. 2: 13. These passages assume that there is no such 
thing as repentance for sin, or faith in Christ, or spiritual 
service of God, apart from divine help. And some of 
them express the view that sinful men are morally weak, 
so weak that they cannot — because they will not — seek 
the Lord and make him the joy of their souls. These are 


mankind: nature, character, condition 153 

not metaphysical statements, but practical; they do not 
refer to the freedom or slavery of the will, in a philo- 
sophical sense, but to the morally broken, irresolute, and 
feeble condition of man by reason of sin. 

d. The teaching of Scripture as to the duty of sinful 
men. This is positive and clear, implying that their 
moral weakness is no excuse for their continuing in sin : 
Eze. 18:27, 31, 32; Matt. 11:28 f . ; Acts 3: 19. Thus 
the duty of sinners to repent and seek the Lord is plainly 
taught. Nay, more, sinners are commanded to make 
themselves a new heart, as they are elsewhere com- 
manded to love God with all the heart. This then is the 
simple and constant duty of sinners, and hence it must 
be in some way within their power. But how can one be 
so weak as to need God’s help in repenting, and yet be 
free, and, in an important sense, able to repent? It may 
be answered without doubt that their weakness is alto- 
gether sinful and therefore inexcusable ; that their cannot 
is reducible to a will not. They freely choose to remain 
selfish, unholy, impenitent. 1 

e. The teaching of Scripture as to God’s grace. Some 
of the texts alleged in proof of man’s moral weakness 
speak of God’s assistance or grace. Thus the Philippians 
were exhorted to work out their own salvation, because 
it was God who was working in them both to will and 
to work. Hence, the practical difficulty that a free, 
vigorous choice of evil is incompatible with a free vigor- 
ous choice of good, that a strong preference of self in- 
capacitates one for a strong preference of God, is sur- 
mounted by divine grace ; not by excusing the sinner but 
by granting him unmerited assistance, not by denying or 
taking away his freedom of choice but by so stirring up 
his moral nature and quickening his religious suscepti- 
bility that he will seek the Lord. 

(2) The testimony of consciousness. This is com- 
1 See Dr. Smalley in “ Theol. Tracts,” III., p. 404. 


154 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

monly regarded as the clearest evidence of freedom in 
choosing. Many writers pronounce it conclusive. 

a. Sir Wm. Hamilton represents it as “ the express 
affirmation, the unconditional testimony of consciousness, 
that we are, though we know not how, the true and 
responsible authors of our actions.” 1 Again, “ the doc- 
trine of Moral Liberty cannot be made conceivable. . . . 
All that can be done is to show, — i, that for the fact of 
liberty, we have, immediately or mediately, the evidence 
of consciousness; and, 2, that there are, among the 
phenomena of mind, many facts which we must admit as 
actual, but of whose possibility we are wholly unable to 
form any notion.” A persuasion that our moral action is 
free, — that we are able in every instance to do right and 
refrain from wrong, seems to be instinctive and to flow 
from a consciousness of the fact. Moreover, as we look 
back upon a decision to do wrong, we seem to see that 
we could have decided otherwise. 

“ So nigh is grandeur to our dust, 

So near is God to man. 

When duty whispers low, thou must , 

The youth replies, I can” — R. W. Emerson. 

b. But the testimony of consciousness to the freedom 
of the human will is sometimes denied and sometimes 
impeached as false. 

Dr. Alexander (Arch.) remarks that “When we feel 
that we could and would act differently from what we 
have done, in certain specified circumstances, it is always 
on the supposition that our views and feelings should be 
different .” 2 

There is certainly force in this remark. When we 
recall a decision made in the past, we do not usually 
recall our mental state in all respects. If we should do 

1 Philosophy of the Conditioned,” p. 507^ Wight. 

2 “Moral Science,” p. 119. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 155 

this perfectly, we should doubtless see that our decision 
would now be the same as before. But the question is 
not, should we do the same thing again, if we were 
situated in every respect as we then were, but were we 
then conscious of a power to do otherwise, conscious of 
doing freely what we did, conscious of choosing this 
while able to choose that? This latter question we are 
disposed to answer in the affirmative. In the very act of 
choice we know ourselves to he free. At the precise 
instant of deciding we feel ourselves uncompelled. If 
we follow impulse, instead of reason, we do it of our own 
accord. If we obey conscience, instead of appetite, we 
feel that we could do the reverse. 

(3) The testimony of logic. This is said by many to 
be inconsistent with moral freedom. If we are free we 
are so illogically, incomprehensibly. 

a. To put the argument after the manner of Ed- 
wards : There must be in every good choice a right • feel- 
ing or desire which gives character to the choice, and 
which is not originated by it. There can be no worthy 
choice of God as the highest good which does not include 
in itself a certain appreciation of him. Without love it 
is impossible to make him the end of action or the object 
of worship. The quality of love in the choice is precisely 
that which makes it virtuous. To suppose the love origi- 
nated by the choice is to suppose an effect wholly unlike 
its cause — a good thing originated by something that has 
no goodness. Again, to suppose that God is chosen as 
the highest good when love to him is weaker than love to 
self, is to disregard the soul’s estimate of the worth of 
objects and make it choose a less desirable instead of a 
more desirable object. Still more unreasonable is it to 
suppose that God is thus chosen by one who has no love 
to him. 

Thus in seeking a sufficient reason for a holy choice 
we seem to find that it must be a holy desire in the person 


156 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

choosing. And, therefore, if no such desire is in the 
sinner’s heart, he will never choose aright. His imma- 
nent preference, his abiding inclination, being wrong, all 
his particular volitions will be wrong. Only if some 
divine influence work in his heart will he turn from sin 
and enter the way of holiness. ' 

Lotze believes that “ the power to initiate a new series of 
events exists in the free will of man, but that the way in 
which this comes to pass is inexplicable. The idea of deter- 
minism is perfectly clear and free from contradiction. But 
there is one, and only one, fact that can bring us to the 
thought of freedom — and that is the feeling of penitence and 
self-condemnation. The conception of an ‘ ought ’ and of an 
obligation has the most indubitable and incontrovertible 
significance” (condensed). The sum of his argument is, 
that necessity is logically clear, that freedom is inexplicable 
but not therefore incredible, that freedom is demanded by 
obligation, penitence, religion, and that it is limited, though 
sufficient to render men accountable and inexcusable for sin. 

Schurman (J. G.) writes as follows: “Doubtless, if the 
category of causality is valid for mind, it must be admitted 
that volitions and actions are inexorably determined. But 
what ground is there for applying to persons what we know 
only as true for things? There is, in fact, none whatsoever, 
except the unifying impulse we follow in our scientific re- 
search. That everything should stand under one category 
is doubtless an ideal for knowing, but .it is not on that ac- 
count a condition of being . . . The will is desire with full- 
orbed eye of reason. It is thus the ground for distinction 
between acts that we perform and events that merely happen. 
It belongs to the inmost centre of our being, and as it is 
the pledge of our individuality, so is it the primal energy, of 
which we are directly conscious, but of which we can give no 
more description than of a color or sound.” 1 

b. On the other hand, the word “ occasion ” or “ con- 
dition ” is scarcely strong enough to express the rela- 

1 “ Kantian Ethics,” pp. 47, 34. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 157 

tion between desire and choice. Influence appears to be 
a more exact expression for the bearing of the one upon 
the other. But influence is not constraint; it is con- 
sistent with freedom, and willing is always by its very 
nature free. In so far as any activity of mind is volun- 
tary, it is free ; in so far as it is involuntary it is not free. 
If there be inward constraint, compulsion, so that the 
soul is driven in a certain direction by a blind, strong 
impulse, the act is properly called involuntary. A mad- 
man is not a freeman. But blind impulse is entirely dis- 
tinct from a deep moral preference or choice, which in- 
fluences the whole life of a man consciously free. The 
one is passion, the other character. 

6. Is moral action equally voluntary, original, and free 
in all moral beings, good or bad? By moral action is 
now meant the ultimate preference involved in choice, 
and expressed by it. 

( 1 ) This preference is profoundly voluntary, and how- 
ever long it may be cherished it continues to be volun- 
tary. No degree of progress in either holiness or sin can 
change its character in this respect. God is free ; Gabriel 
is free; Satan is free. If the appeal be made to con- 
sciousness, the same answer will come from every moral 
being — from the youth of eighteen and the man of 
eighty. And if it be made to reason, no other answer is 
possible without undermining the foundations of moral 
government. For if the presence of moral bias or prefer- 
ence in the soul be incompatible with freedom, neither 
good nor bad men can be free; only those who are 
morally undecided, halting between two opinions, luke- 
warm, can be justly responsible for their conduct. As 
soon as they begin to have any character, disposition, or 
aim, they begin to lose their power of choice and to fall 
into the arms of necessity. This cannot be. Men of 
fixed habits and unwavering purpose are as ready to 
take the responsibility of their own conduct as are those 


158 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

who halt between two opinions, being almost equally 
ready to adopt either. 

(2) Nevertheless, to reverse a settled preference or 
choice is an arduous task. When a preference has been 
cherished until it is a habit of the soul, the circumstance 
that it is voluntary and therefore free does not render it 
weak. Habits have roots; a disposition long indulged 
cannot be easily removed. If it could be, a stable char- 
acter would never be formed. Heaven would be impos- 
sible, as well as hell. Moral weakness would be normal 
and everlasting. But the reverse of this is true. Though 
choice never ceases to be free, it rapidly ceases to be 
fickle in a moral respect, so that the prophet’s language 
seems scarcely hyperbolical. “ Can the Ethiopian change 
his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do 
good that are accustomed to do evil.” 

(3) The following propositions may be easily accepted 
as true, namely: — 

a. That every man has whatever power of will is nec- 
essary to make him justly responsible for the moral good 
or evil in his character and conduct. 

b. That this power is inalienable , no degree of prog- 
ress in holiness or sinfulness having any tendency to 
destroy it. However holy Gabriel may be, he possesses 
it; however wicked Satan may be, he also possesses it. 

c. That even the moral bias of man's heart is in a 
most important sense voluntary , since all spiritual activ- 
ity is at once intellectual , emotional , and voluntary. 

d. That moral character , as a permanent thing, may 
be discovered most readily in the state of the moral sus- 
ceptibilities and feelings, — the permanent preference of 
the soul. 

e. That conscious choice and volition indorse, ex- 
press, and deepen this character or these susceptibilities ; 
while the latter in turn have great influence upon the 
former. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 159 

f. Hence , that virtue and sin cannot be traced wholly 
to either function of man's spirit , — to his moral taste or 
to his will. 

g. Yet a certain pozver of choosing his end or aim in 
life appears to be the rational basis of responsibility. 


CHAPTER II 


CHARACTER OF MANKIND 
I. Mankind, as a Race, are Sinful 
NDER this head the following propositions will be 



u discussed, viz. : The nature of sin; the fact that 
all men are sinful; and the fact that all men are not 
equally sinful. 

i. The nature of sin. What is the spring of moral 
evil in men, the central impulse or aim, which leads men 
to all forms of wrong doing? It has been thought 
enough to say that sin is 

(i) Want of conformity to the law of God . 1 This is 
supported by an appeal to several declarations of Scrip- 
ture: i John 3:4; Matt. 13:41; Rom. 6:19; 2 Cor. 
6:14; Rom. 2:2 5 ; 5:13; Heb. 2:2; Gen. 3 : 3, and to 
many biblical designations of sin. 2 According to this 
view of the case, sin is essentially disobedience. 

But if the emphasis is laid on mere infraction of law, 
on mere disobedience without regard to the character and 
content of the rule the definition does not give us what 
we desire, viz., the central impulse to wrong-doing, the 

1 See “ Confession of Faith ” of the Presbyterian Church of 
the United States, p. 186. 

2 See Trench, “New Testament Synonyms,” p. 226 f. — 

dp.aprLa, ap.dpTrjp.cL, rrapaKO'tj, avopla, rrapavopla, rrapdfiaais, rrapdirrupa, 

dyvoifjpa, tJ Trrjpa . Aug. “Factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid 
contra ceternam legem,” Con. Faust XX., 27. 


160 


mankind: nature, character, condition 161 

working* principle of sin. For the love of lawlessness or 
disobedience is not a constant element in evil. Or if the 
emphasis is laid on the divineness of the law, on its being 
God's law, we are still moved to ask, What does God’s 
law brand as sin? What is man forbidden by it to do? 
Can all which that law forbids be resolved into pride or 
traced back to pride as its source? The definition seems 
to be true, but scarcely sufficient for our purpose. 

Sin has been defined, — 

(2) As concupiscence or inordinate desire. And in 
this case also appeal is made to biblical testimony: Rom. 
1 : 18 f. ; 4 : 1 ; 7 : 8, 14, 18, 23, 24 ; 8 : 6 f. ; Gal. 5 : 16 f. ; 
Phil. 3:4; 1 Cor. 1:26; 3:1-4; 2 Cor. 1:12; cf. John 
1 : 13 ; 3 : 6 ; Gen. 6 : 3. But Paul uses the words, “ flesh,” 
“ fleshly,” and the like, in these passages to denote man 
in his unrenewed state. They refer to the soul and its 
impulses as well as to the body and its appetites. The 
body may be both an occasion and an instrument of sin; 
yet sin no more originates in a bodily appetite than it 
does in the object which that appetite craves. A carnal 
or fleshly mind is one that is obedient to sinful impulses, 
to appetite, lust, pride, envy, wrath, and other evil affec- 
tions, but sin originates in the heart : Prov. 4 : 23 ; Matt. 
15:19. 

Again, sin is defined, — 

( 3 ) As deficiency of love to God and man. In this 
case reference is made to certain words of Scripture, for 
example : Matt. 22 : 37-39 ; Luke 10 : 27 , 28 ; Deut. 6 : 5 ; 
10 : 12 ; 30 : 6 , to the goodness of many acts performed 
by unrenewed men, and to God’s relation to sin. Many 
acts of unrenewed men are believed to be sinful for no 
other reason than their lack of love to God. Sin is un- 
real, unsubstantial, it is not something but a want of 
something. This view is sometimes advocated by 
Augustine. But sin appears to be more than a lack of 
moral power, more than an absence of suitable love ; it is 


162 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


often positive, energetic, and hostile to good — hatred, 
instead of love. 1 

It has been defined, — 

(4) As preference of self to God. A majority of 
modern theologians adopt this definition. And it is sup- 
ported by many expressions of the Sacred Record : as, 
John 5:30; 7:18; 8:50; Matt. 20:28; 26:39; Rom. 
15:3; 14:7; Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:15; Phil. 2:4, 21; 1 
Cor. 10 : 24, 33 ; John 12:25; 1 Cor. 13:5; and also by a 
careful study of selfishness. For this impulse and affec- 
tion will be found to comprehend self-indulgence, self- 
seeking, and self-will. And in these three forms, variously 
combined, preference of self will be seen to account for 
nearly and perhaps all sin. 

The law says, Be in harmony with all that is, with 
all sentient being, with the ends for which all that is, 
exists. Since God is supreme, treat him as supreme. 
Since he is most holy and good, treat him as most holy 
and good. Since he is the sun, the source of all light 
and beauty and life, and you are but a dewdrop reflecting 
his radiance, treat him as sun and source, and yourself 
as but a tiny mirror. Moreover, since man is your peer, 
respect and love and treat him as as your peer. But 
selfishness says, Be indifferent to all but self, except so 
far as you can turn it to your account. Love thyself first. 
Make thyself the centre of thought, of purpose, and of 
action. Your own happiness is the only good for you. 
Let others take care of themselves. “ Am I my brother’s 
keeper ? ” 

2. All mankind are sinful. There is evidence suffi- 
cient to justify the assertion that no member of the 
human race, with the exception of Jesus Christ, has es- 

1 Non enim natura nostra boni tantum inops et vacua est; sed 
malorum omnium adeo fertilis et ferox, ut otiosa esse non potuit. 
[Calvin, (J.), “ Institutio Religionis Christiance Lib., II., 1 , 8, 
prope finem.] 


mankind: nature, character, condition 163 

caped the influence of sin. All are morally depraved at 
birth, and, if they live long in the world, become guilty of 
personal sin. By moral depravity is meant a state of 
the human soul which naturally leads to sin, and which 
can only be accounted for as the effect of ancestral sin. 

(1) The Scriptures sometimes represent all men as 
sinful, 1 Kings 8:46; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3 : 9 f . Yet 
these passages may be supposed to refer to such only as 
have personally and consciously disobeyed the law of 
God. 

(2) Again, the Scriptures sometimes include bodily 
death in the penalty of sin, as, Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12 
f. ; 1 Cor. 15 : 21, 22, 45 f. ; and bodily death is the lot of 
all, young or old. Only two exceptions have been made 
to this rule, and such as are alive at the final coming of 
Christ will be changed without dying, so that their bodies 
will be incorruptible. Death is the rule. 

(3) The Scriptures also represent the atonement as 
universal, 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4: 10; Heb. 2:9; 1 
Pet. 3:18; and if it was really provided for all, without 
exception, all must be in some way touched with the virus 
of sin. Even the youngest must by heredity have moral 
tendencies which are evil and need to be changed. 

(4) The Scriptures appear to teach that man’s nature 
is vitiated at birth since the fall of our first parents, see 
John 3:6; 1 Cor. 7 : 14 ; Eph. 2:3; Rom. 5 ; 12 f. ; 1 
Cor. 15 : 22. This, at least, is the most obvious sense of 
these passages, and it should not be set aside, without 
clear evidence of inconsistency with known facts, or other 
teaching of Scripture. 1 

The language of profane writers is also worthy of notice 
in this connection. Ovid says, “ We always strive after what 
is forbidden, and covet what is denied.” And Seneca re- 
marks that “ We have all sinned, some more and some less; 

1 But see an interesting discussion of this subject in “The 
Origin of Sin,” by Rev. E. W. Cook, A.M. 


164 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

some of set purpose, others impelled by chance or borne away 
by another’s wickedness. Some of us have persisted in good 
with too little energy, and, unwilling, resisting, have lost our 
innocence. Nor do we sin only; but we shall sin to the end 
of life.” 1 

If all men are either morally depraved or sinful at 
birth, it must be in consequence of the apostasy in Eden ; 
for Christians agree in teaching that man was originally 
upright. As he came from the hand of his Creator, he 
was inclined to good rather than to evil; but since the 
fall all men are predisposed to evil. 

3. All mankind are not equally sinful. 

(1) For the Scriptures teach that the sinfulness of 
some men is much greater than that of others, and espe- 
cially that it is modified by the religious knowledge 
given to men. See, Prov. 29:1; Jer. 13:23; Luke, 
12:48; John 3:19; 15:22, 24; 2 Tim. 3:13; Rom. 
2:12; 4:15; 5:13; 1 Cor. 14:20. Compare Prov. 
1:24 f. ; Matt. 18:3; 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 
18:16; Eze. 16:47-52; Matt. 10:15; 11:22; John 
19 : 1 1 ; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Peter 2 : 20, 21 ; Amos 3 : 2. 

(2) Yet there is a sense in which all unrenewed men 
are totally depraved, namely, in the sense that they have 
no proper love to God, Rom. 8: 7; 1 John 4:7; and, as 
love to God is required in every part of life and is found 
in no part of it, the very principle of holy obedience is 
entirely wanting. Moreover, as selfishness reigns in the 
unrenewed heart, there is latent or conscious enmity to 
God in every such heart. Let the nature of God be re- 
vealed, as opposed to all self-indulgence, self-seeking, 
and self-will, and this latent enmity will emerge into con- 
scious action. A state of indifference will be no longer 
possible. Total depravity in this use of the expression 
is perfectly consistent with degrees of sinfulness and of 
guilt; but the expression is liable to be misunderstood. 

1 “ dementia,” c. 7, cf. c. 23. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 165 

(3) The same conclusion will be reached by a study 
of man’s accountability for his moral life or conduct. 
We may look at this in the light of reason and conscience, 
and say, in general, that every man, as a moral being, is 
accountable for whatever sin he commits or countenances. 
Hence : — 

a. He is accountable for every voluntary act of his 
ozvn that is wrong. By a voluntary act is meant a choice 
or volition, and by a wrong act, one that does not agree 
with the will of God as known to the actor. The wrong- 
ness of a choice or volition may be said to be revealed to 
a man, whenever conscience, or Scripture, or Providence 
has put within his reach a knowledge of the character of 
that act. For a refusal to receive the light, or a neglect 
to seek it, leaves him without excuse when his choice or 
act is wrong. 

b. Every man becomes accountable for an inherited 
inclination to evil which he appropriates by doing a sinful 
act. By “ appropriates ” we mean accepts as his motive 
to the act. For whatever may be thought of his relation 
to an impulse of his heart which he has never consented 
to follow, there should be no hesitation in admitting that 
he is responsible for that impulse to evil when he has 
decided to obey it, has taken it for his guide; for by so 
doing he has virtually said, “ This is my desire, and I 
will gratify it ” ; “ evil be thou my good ! ” Henceforth 
let him never plead that “ the lust of the flesh, and the 
lust of the eye, and the pride of life ” are an evil inherit- 
ance for which he is to give no account. 

c. Every man is accountable for any increase of in- 
clination to evil in his heart which is due to his sinful 
action. If- by conscious choice or volition one indorses 
and expresses a tendency of his heart to sin, he also by 
the same act deepens and strengthens that tendency, and 
for this addition to the power of evil in his nature he is 
certainly accountable to God. If he reenforces an enemy 


1 66 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

to good which he ought rather to defeat and disarm, he 
must answer for it before the Lord of all by whom he is 
commanded to be holy. 

d. Every person sinning is responsible for all the evil 
which may be expected by him to result from his sin. 
Reason makes the spirit and intent of the agent the prin- 
cipal source of his guilt in a sinful act, and suggests that 
the natural consequences of such an act may be averted 
by the providence of God or may be rendered unex- 
pectedly dreadful by the concurrent wickedness of other 
men. But the real nature of many sins is most clearly 
manifested by their consequences. And therefore the 
wisdom of God has forewarned us of those natural con- 
sequences. So far as this has been done, a wrong-doer is 
justly held accountable for them, — whether they do in 
fact flow from his action or are averted by the merciful 
hand of Providence. 

Thus far we have looked in but one direction, that is, 
at the positive increase of evil by a sinner’s conduct — at 
sin as represented by wrong propensities, affections, and 
volitions. But we must now look in an opposite direc- 
tion and note the effect of sinning upon one’s capacity 
for good. 

e. A sinner is accountable for any lack of improve- 
ment in his capacity for moral and religious feeling and 
action , in so far as this lack of improvement is occasioned 
by his sinful conduct. This is a grave responsibility, and 
not without the best of reasons should we blame a moral 
being for the good which he might have done, as well as 
for the evil which he does — for his neglect to improve 
his capacities for right living and their consequent lack 
of growth, as Well as for his use of capacities- for wrong 
action and their consequent increase. But if man’s 
nature is not fixed, but vital and crescent, if he is a 
being capable of progress in power for good or evil, it is 
self-evident that his capacities are talents to be aug- 


mankind: nature, character, CONDITION 167 

merited by use, and that his Lord will hold him account- 
able for failing to become as great and good as he could 
have become by doing always the best he could do. In 
a life of sin the best powers and susceptibilities are un- 
employed. Germs of holy discrimination and feeling are 
undeveloped. Talents lent to man for the service of God 
are hid in a napkin. And it cannot be doubted that the 
Most High will reckon this against his unfaithful servant. 

f. A sinner is responsible for any deterioration of his 
capacity for moral and religious discernment, feeling, and 
conduct, when this deterioration is caused by his ozvn 
sinful action. It may be assumed that spiritual powers 
are injured by sin. The further one goes in rebellion 
against God, the duller becomes his spiritual vision, and 
the weaker his susceptibility to holy influences. For this 
the sinner is accountable, inasmuch as it is a well-known 
effect of wrong doing. 

g. A sinner is responsible for his failure to do all the 
good he might have done if he had never performed an 
unworthy act, but had alzvays used every faculty and 
susceptibility of his nature for good and for nothing but 
good. The essence of the divine law is a demand, not a 
prohibition ; hence more sin may often be committed by 
neglecting to answer that demand, than by doing what is 
prohibited. It is holy service that God requires — love to 
himself and love to his creatures — and a great part of 
human sin consists in withholding this love. 

The sinner is therefore culpable for every choice of 
evil, for the inclination to evil which he accepts by that 
choice, for the growth of that inclination in consequence 
of the choice, for the foreseeable evil resulting from the 
choice, for the non-improvement of his capacity for good 
involved in that choice, for the deterioration of his capa- 
city for good consequent on the choice, and for his failure 
because of it to do all the good he might otherwise have 
done; in a word, for all the difference between what he 


1 68 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

has actually done in life, and become in spiritual power 
and excellence, and what he might have done in life, and 
become in spiritual power, if he had been holy from the 
first. This seems to be a simply rational indictment 
against him as an unfaithful steward of God. And it is 
therefore self-evident that all men are not equally sinful. 

But every man is a member of the human family. His 
social relations are at the same time moral, and it is neces- 
sary to call attention to his responsibility from this point 
of view. 

Is, then, a man responsible in any degree for the sinful 
action of others zvhich he countenances, and merely coun- 
tenances? (Cf. Rom. 1:32.) 

1. That he is responsible for countenancing the sinful 
act of another will not be denied; for this assent to 
wrong-doing is his own spiritual act, the smile of his soul 
upon sin. But how can a man be accountable for an act 
with which he has had no causal connection? Can ten 
thousand persons be guilty of a crime that was per- 
petrated by one? We can only answer by saying that in 
some cases there seems to be nothing but j ustice in taking 
the will for the deed, if the guilt of human action must 
be found in the will rather than in the deed, that is, in 
the motive and intent rather than in the outward or even 
the mere voluntary act. Hence we must beware of limit- 
ing any man’s responsibility to what he actually does, as 
if efficient causation were the sole ground of account- 
ability. For one may have in his heart a desire which 
leads naturally to a sinful act, and which would render 
the act sinful if performed, and yet not perform the act 
himself, but simply countenance it in another, or say 
amen to it as performed ages ago. 

2. But assent to sin is rarely an act of the soul with 
no influence on others. For men are not alone in the 
world, and no mask is thick enough to hide one from his 
fellows. The workings of the human heart flow through 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 169 

many channels to kindred hearts. The assent of a soul 
to evil-doing finds its way to evil-doers and encourages 
them in their work. The wicked would scarcely dare to 
be vile or profane, were it not for the silent assent of 
their more prudent allies. If the ungodly were encom- 
passed by men whose innermost nature condemned all 
sin, they would surely know and feel this, though no 
word were spoken. So, likewise, assent to sin, though 
not avowed to the sinner, is almost certain to be divined 
by him, silencing the voice of his conscience for past sin, 
or emboldening him to act against that voice in the 
future. Thus in truth a million hearts may be guilty of 
murder, though but one hand performs the deed. Nor 
will the guilt of the million be increased or diminished 
by the temporal relation of their assent to the deed of sin. 
An assent after the deed is just as full of evil as an assent 
before the deed. An absolutely perfect Ruler must often 
treat the instigator of a crime as equally guilty with the 
perpetrator of it, and must sometimes pronounce the man 
who cries, “ All hail ! ” to the wrong-doer even more cul- 
pable than the wrong-doer himself. 

3. We do not overlook a certain difference between 
the doer of a bad action and the man who assents to it; 
but in spite of this difference, each of them will be 
held accountable for the wrong of the deed in proportion 
to the interest which he feels in its accomplishment. For 
the tie which binds one to an act of holiness or of sin is 
moral as well as causal ; it is in the spirit, the preference, 
the aim of the soul, as well as in the act which reveals the 
spirit and aim. 

4. Must we not, then, go a step further, and say that in 
the deepest sense, all sin is one in principle, and all 
sinners an alliance of evil-doers, in antagonism to God 
and holiness? That every man who commits one sin 
enters that alliance and associates himself in a measure 
with all sinners and all sin, p*ast, present, and future, 


170 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

becoming thereby accountable for all, though only in 
proportion to the depth of his sympathy with evil? 
There is something profoundly interesting in this view 
of the moral gravity of life, as determined by our rela- 
tions to the human race. No one lives for himself. 
Every man is his brother’s keeper. 

5. To all this must be added that no man needs to work 
alone ; every one may have the assistance of God, as well 
as of man and of nature. He must therefore be responsi- 
ble not only for what he can do standing alone, but for 
what he can do by his own power coupled with all avail- 
able help from God and man and nature. He is a co- 
worker, and is expected to seek and to have the aid of 
others in performing the task set him by the Lord of all. 
To refuse help may be to decline doing what he ought to 
do. To refuse seeking help, when that is the proper way 
of obtaining it, is to incur the responsibility of failure 
and sin. 

6. Man’s true life and blessedness are multiplied a hun- 
dred fold by his relation to beings of the same race and 
nature with himself. And who can prove that this ad- 
vantage could have been given him without correspond- 
ing peril ? Who can say that the obedience of the fathers 
could be remembered, to the benefit of the children, a 
thousand generations, unless the sins of the fathers were, 
by the action of general laws, visited upon the children 
to the third and fourth generation of them that hate 
God? 

7. But sympathy with mankind is a matter of growth, 
whether that sympathy be with the evil or with the good. 
And, therefore, by a study of man’s responsibility for 
sinful conduct, in the light of his relation to God merely, 
or in the light of his relation to his brothers also, we are 
confirmed in our position that all men are not equally 
sinful, inasmuch as all men have not, and are not account- 
able for having, the same degree of sympathy with sin in 
others. Sinfulness of character is variable, and far more 
inveterate in some than in others. 


CHAPTER III 


CONDITION OF MANKIND 


I. Mankind, as Truly Sinful, are Guilty and 
Condemned 



HIS proposition has been partially considered in 


A showing the degree of sinfulness in mankind. 
For in order to show their increasing sinfulness we 
pointed out the spiritual action for which, as moral be- 
ings, they are justly held responsible. It is not neces- 
sary to repeat that discussion. We may now assume 
that men, as they go on in disobedience to God, are con- 
demned by him as guilty in the particulars there stated. 

But are they in any way accountable for the sin of 
their first parents? If so, in what way and to what ex- 
tent? The subject is one of great difficulty because of the 
intimate and mysterious connection between all the mem- 
bers of the human race. Looking at the question his- 
torically we find six leading hypotheses on the subject. 

i. The Pelagian hypothesis assumes that a man can- 
not be responsible for anything except his own voluntary 
action. It asserts and emphasizes “ the power of con- 
trary choice,” — the possibilitatem utriusque partis. And 
it holds that Adam and Christ are set forth in Rom. 5:12 
f. as typical personages, who illustrate the divinely estab- 
lished connection between sin and death, righteousness 
and life. This hypothesis looks upon every man as an 
individual, and lays no stress upon heredity or the race 
connection, in estimating guilt. It minimizes sin to the 
utmost, and may, without injustice, be said to take a 
somewhat superficial view of human life and character. 


172 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


2. The Arminian hypothesis supposes man to be re- 
sponsible for his own voluntary action. It takes a deeper 
view of sin than the Pelagian theory allows, and admits 
that, since the fall, and owing to the fall, men are born 
“ without original righteousness,” morally powerless, 
and needing “ new grace,” but not guilty. It teaches that 
men are made responsible for the right and wrong of 
their conduct by a gracious ability imparted by God. 1 

“ It is not,” says Dr. Whedon, “ until there is redemptively 
conferred upon man what we call a gracious ability for the 
right that man can strictly be responsible for the wrong.” 
“ It is as a depraved being that man becomes an ego ; but 
instantly after, in the order of nature, he is met by the 
provisions of the atonement. If he is not thereby imme- 
diately unconditionally justified and regenerated, his death 
before the commission of actual sin would place him out of 
the category of condemnation.” 

Dr. Whedon supposes that Adam and Christ are rep- 
resented as “ federal heads ” of mankind in Rom. 5:12 
f., but only “ conceptually,” or by a “legal fiction.” 2 
This theory vindicates human freedom and accounta- 
bility by assuming a gift of grace not revealed in the 
Scriptures, and by calling that “ grace ” which seems 
almost a debt. 

3. The Edwardean hypothesis affirms that man is 
responsible for all his voluntary action, and that he has 
a natural ability to do right, though his inclination to sin 
leads him always to do wrong. It denies that men are 
responsible for any inherited inclination or bias, and holds 
that they are only responsible for the action by which they 
freely appropriate and express such an inclination. 
Hence men are born depraved, but not sinful, loaded with 

1 Bib. Sac. XIX, p. 241 f. 

2 That is, “ an assumption of a possible thing as a fact ir- 
respective of its truth.” (Webster.) 


mankind: nature, character, condition 173 

misfortune but not with guilt. Their guilt begins with 
moral action ; and this, owing to their innate bias to evil, 
is always sinful. This hypothesis regards Adam and 
Christ in Rom. 5 : 12 f. as sources of inclination to evil, 
in the one case, and to good, in the other. It differs from 
the Arminian theory by affirming natural ability instead 
of gracious ability, but its natural ability is said to be 
practically crippled by moral inability. It is, however, 
consistent with the doctrine of election, while that of 
gracious ability is not. 

4. The Placean hypothesis supposes that men are ac- 
countable for all the sin which they commit, or desire to 
commit, or indorse in others by sympathy of aim and 
spirit. It supposes that all men share with Adam in the 
corruption of nature caused by the fall, that they are 
directly charged with this corruption which they have, 
and, through this, with the sin which caused it and is 
indorsed by it. Adam and Christ are set forth in Rom. 
12 f. as the sources, respectively, of sin and death, 
righteousness and life. 

But how is it any more reasonable to hold men account- 
able for an innate sinful bias than for the sin which 
originated that bias? Or to hold them indirectly ac- 
countable for the apostacy of our first parents than to 
hold them directly responsible for it? Yet there are sev- 
eral passages of Scriptures which accord well with this 
theory, e. g. Ex. 20 : 5, 6. 

5. The Augustinian hypothesis makes every man re- 
sponsible for his moral bias, as well as action, and a 
particeps criminis in every case where his heart assents 
to a sinful action. Advocates of this theory generally 
accept the traducian view of the origin of human souls, 
as well as of human bodies. And they emphasize the 
oneness of the human race, saying with Augustine, “ We 
were all in that one man (Adam), since we were all that 
pne man who lapsed into sin through the woman that 


*74 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


was made from him previous to transgression. The form 
in which we were to live as individuals had not, indeed, 
been created and assigned to us, man by man ; but that 
seminal nature from which we were to be propagated was 
in existence/’ Adam and Christ are supposed to be re- 
presented in Rom. 5:12 f. as the sources, though in a 
somewhat different sense, the one of sin and death, the 
other of righteousness and life. 

The great merit of this hypothesis is supposed to bej 
that it justifies the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his 
posterity, since it was their sin as really as it was his. 
Their spiritual nature was germinally in his, and willed 
in his willing, sinned in his sinning. The fall was the 
fall of the entire race, for the spiritual substance of all 
human souls was then in his soul. By Adam is meant, 
according to Shedd, Adam and Eve, for human nature 
is not man or woman separately, but man and woman 
united. “ Each of us, as an individual,” says Ernest 
Naville, “ is only personally responsible for his personal 
acts, or to speak more exactly, for the personal part of 
his acts. But each of us, inasmuch as he is man, is 
jointly and severally ( solidairement ) responsible for the 
fall of the human race.” 1 

But it may be questioned whether the descendants of 
Adam, as separate persons, have any sense of guilt for 
what their nature did in the person of Adam and Eve. 
What the traducian theory does explain is the moral 
condition of mankind since the fall : it scarcely explains 
why men should be charged with sin for being in that 
condition. 

6. The Calvinistic hypothesis supposes that every man 
is responsible for his depraved heart and sinful conduct. 
Adam and Christ, by divine appointment, were federal 
heads or representatives, the fortner of all his descen- 
dants, the latter of all his chosen. According to this 
1 “ The Problem of Evil,” p. 192, 


mankind: nature, character, condition 175 

theory, Adam’s apostacy is imputed to all his posterity, 
and they are held responsible for it, because he acted for 
them as well as for himself. This view is said to ac- 
count for the moral condition in which men are born, 
i.e., for their bias to evil. It is also said to agree with the 
evident meaning of Paul’s language in the fifth of 
Romans, and with the family constitution. But it seems 
to be more legal than spiritual ; it goes but a little way 
in satisfying our reason; and it puts justification before 
faith, while the New Testament makes faith a condition 
of justification, and therefore logically prior to it. 

Something may easily be said against every one of 
these hypotheses. And evidently the connection of the 
race with Adam, and of believers with Christ, brings into 
the problem of imputation a great part of the difficulty 
which it offers to the human understanding. But we 
may safely say as much as this, that every child of Adam 
is accountable for the degree of sympathy which he has 
with the whole system of evil in the world, and with the 
primal act of disobedience among men. If that sympathy 
is full, whether it be expressed by deed or thought, if the 
whole force of his being is arrayed against heaven and 
on the side of hell, it is difficult to limit his responsibility. 

Moreover, since physical death has, to some extent, 
a penal character, and is a consequence of Adam’s sin, 
the Pelagian hypothesis must be decisively rejected. For 
the descendants of Adam unquestionably inherit from 
him a moral nature inclined to evil. Their race connec- 
tion with him is most intimate and far-reaching in its 
effects for good and ill. How the ill effects are treated 
in the divine administration must be considered from 
many points of view before the fulness of truth will be 
apprehended. 

By saying that unrenewed men are condemned as well 
as guilty, we call attention to the fact that God is an 
omniscient Ruler who always looks upon men as they are, 


176 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

and estimates their conduct at its true value. He that 
believes not is condemned already. But not finally and 
irrevocably. Forgiveness is possible, but only on con- 
dition of repentance. 

II. Mankind Unrenewed, Are Exposed to Future 
Punishment Without Prospect of Relief 

Law is more than advice, more than persuasion; it is 
a rule of duty, sanctioned and sustained by rewards and 
punishments ; that is, by the will and action of the Ruler, 
as well as by his character. God not only pleads for 
obedience, he demands it. He is not only pleased with 
those who render it, but displeased with those who do 
not. And as his approval finds expression in his treat- 
ment of those who obey, his disapproval finds expres- 
sion in his treatment of those who disobey. Otherwise, 
his action would not truly represent his character. It 
would be inconsistent with his own nature to treat the 
wicked just as he does the righteous, to show just as 
much favor to those who despise him and forsake his holy 
ways, as he does to those who love him and seek to do 
his will. “ If there is one feeling,” writes De Pressense, 
“ more universal than another, it is the recognition of a 
retributive justice which annexes pain to wrong-doing 
and happiness to well doing.” 

1. The primary and leading sense of punishment is 
suffering by loss or pain inflicted by rightful authority 
upon zvrong-doers. It looks at the past, as well as the 
future ; its aim is retributive as well as reformative. It 
rests upon the postulate, that government ought to make 
a distinction between crime and innocence, that evil-doers 
ought not to receive the same treatment as those who do 
well. “ If every crime is a fit object of punishment, and 
infers to some extent a forfeiture of happiness, it is a 
contradiction and absurdity to say that a crime requires 


mankind: nature, character, condition 177 

punishment because the transgressor has injured his 
own happiness ; yet this is the whole conception of crime 
according to the utilitarian system.” 1 But in the divine 
government, as well as in human governments, punish- 
ment may look to the future also by way of preventing 
sin or crime. This is a second reason for it, and perhaps 
the chief reason in the case of human governments that 
cannot search the hearts of transgressors, and estimate 
fairly their blameworthiness. 

But “ some have asked,” remarks Thoreau, " Cannot re- 
ward be substituted for punishment? Is hope a less power- 
ful incentive to action than fear ? . . . This reasoning is 
absurd. Does a man deserve to be rewarded for refraining 
from murder ? ” In the divine government both hope and 
fear are appealed to in behalf of righteousness. “ It is cer- 
tainly consistent with the divine goodness,” argues the 
Younger Edwards, “ that sin exists in the world, otherwise 
it would never have existed. Now, since sin is in the world, 
if God were never to punish it, it would seem that he is no 
enemy to it. Or, if he punishes it in a far less degree than 
it deserves, still it would seem that his displeasure at it is 
far less than it is and ought to be. Nor can mere words or 
verbal declarations of the Deity sufficiently exhibit his op- 
position to sin, so long as he uniformly treats the righteous 
and the wicked in the same manner.” 2 

2. The two elements of punishment are without doubt 
loss and pain. These comprise the sum total of natural 
evil which God annexes to moral evil. They are rep- 
resented in the Bible by various expressions, more or 
less figurative, but all referable to these two kinds of evil. 
And it is in no one’s power to imagine any natural evil 
which is not embraced in the idea of loss or forfeiture 
and of pain. Many biblical expressions relating to the 
penal consequences of sin contain a reference to both 

1 Bowne, “ Metaphysics and Ethics,” p. 98. 

2 Bib. Sac. 1886, p. 199. 


I7 8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

kinds of natural evil. This is true of those which 
represent the wicked as being ultimately cast into the 
lake of fire, or into the outside darkness, or as going from 
the judgment into eternal punishment; very likely, it is 
true, of the terms death, perdition, and being lost. 

To Christians who know something of fellowship 
with God, of the sweetness of his love and of love to 
him, of his tender compassion and self-sacrifice in the 
person of Jesus Christ, and of the enticing fields of spiri- 
tual light and progress open to believers in all the ages to 
come, the loss which is incurred by final unbelief must 
seem the greatest of evils. But to unbelievers who have 
never tasted and seen that the Lord is good, pain may 
appear to be the worst of evils. Loss of communion with 
God, loss of holy joy, they may not appreciate, though, 
as moral beings, they cannot be without some faint con- 
ception of it. But of pain they are often conscious and 
can therefore imagine how undesirable it is. 

3. There is no reason to believe that the final penalty 
of sin, though in all cases an expression of God’s dis- 
pleasure with sinners because of their sins, will be in- 
flicted by him directly. It is rather to be inferred from 
what we know of human souls that their punishment 
will be in a sense self-inflicted, that is, inflicted by the 
working of their own spiritual powers. Reason, memory, 
and conscience will condemn and torment them for 
wrong-doing. The only associates which they will con- 
sent to have will be unworthy and mean. Their own 
enormous and irrepressible selfishness will be matched 
by the selfishness of their comrades in misery. Whether 
they remain of free choice outside the golden city, or 
are forbidden to enter it by an authority which they no 
longer despise, the continued activity of the spiritual 
powers which make them men will probably be the prin- 
cipal source of pain. Conscience will be God’s minister 
in that world as it often is in this. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 179 

Poets sometimes teach the deepest truth. 

“ The mind is its own place, and in itself 
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven/’ 

— Milton. 


“ Conscience is harder than our enemies, 

Knows more, accuses with more nicety.” 

— George Eliot. 

Yet it cannot be regarded as improbable that physical 
environment may have some part in the punishment of 
the lost, though the imagery of the Bible does not war- 
rant any positive declaration on the point. 

Although we are now speaking of the future and final 
punishment of sin, to which men are exposed unless they 
repent, we do not overlook the fact that they have a 
foretaste of punishment in this life. It is, however, a 
strictly merciful foretaste, akin in its purpose to the 
chastisement inflicted on Christians. 

Other views. There are many Christians who do not 
think that unrenewed men are exposed to endless punish- 
ment. They find it hard to reconcile such a fact with the 
wisdom or love of God. And they believe that future 
punishment will issue in the annihilation of the wicked, 
or in their final restoration to holiness and bliss. The 
former of these opinions, under the name of “ Conditional 
Immortality/' has at the present time many advocates, 
and is worthy of close examination. They regard — 

( 1 ) Extinction of conscious being as the final destiny 
of disbelievers in Christ. This belief is defended on 
several distinct grounds, partly rational and partly 
scriptural. 

a. On the ground that endless loss and pain are too 
severe a punishment for temporal sin. 

But we do not look upon them as a punishment for 
merely temporal sin. There is such a thing as persistent, 


i8o 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


eternal sin, and for this alone will punishment be without 
end : Mark 3 : 29. “ Eternal punishment is not a measure 
of God’s resentment against a single sin, which is so 
enormous that the resentment never abates. It is the 
result of any sin, or course of sin, in fixing the sinful 
state beyond recovery.” 1 

b. On the ground that a permanently sinful and miser- 
able being would be worse than useless to himself or 
others, marring forever the peace and order of the 
universe. 

But this is an unstable ground, both because of the 
existence of sin and suffering for many ages already, 
and because of our inability to compass the universe in 
our view and decide what is, and what is not, useful. 

c. On the ground that eternal life is the fruit of union 
with Christ: John 4:14; 20:26, 27, 28; 14:6. 

Everything depends on the idea which was meant to 
be expressed by the words “ eternal life,” or “ life in 
Christ.” We suppose these words denote a quality or 
fulness of life which can only be realized in Christ, and 
not mere conscious existence. Union with Christ is not 
necessary to personal existence here; why must it be 
hereafter? 

d. On the ground that death naturally signifies the 
end of conscious existence, and that the words of Scrip- 
ture have presumptively their ordinary literal sense. 
Neither of these statements can be accepted without large 
qualification. It cannot be proved that among the Jews, 
in the time of Christ, “ death ” usually signified the end 
of conscious existence. Only the Sadducees believed this. 
Nor did the Greeks and Romans deny a shadowy 
existence after death. Equally unsafe is it to assume that 
the language of Scripture is not largely figurative. Every 
word and paragraph must be cautiously examined and 
interpreted, as in the case of other ancient books. 

1 Gould on Mark, p. 66. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 181 

e. On the ground that there are passages which deny 
conscious existence to men after death: Ps. 6 : 6; 30: 10; 
88: n-13; 115:17; Eccl. 9:10; Isa. 38: 18, 19; (cf. Jer. 
5 1 : 57 ; 1 Thess. 4: 13 f.). But some of these passages 
speak of the righteous as well as of the wicked, and 
therefore prove too much, if they prove what is claimed. 
Nearly all of them are from poetic books of the Old 
Testament. Some of them may not represent inspired 
teaching. And finally there are clear passages in the 
New Testament which speak of the conscious existence 
of both good and bad men after death: Luke 16: 19-31 ; 
23 : 43 ; Heb. 12:23; 2 Pet. 2 • 9- 

f. On the ground that other terms besides death, used 
to connote the punishment of the wicked, singnify ex- 
tinction of personal being, as destruction or perdi- 
tion: Matt. 10:6, 42; 15:24; Luke 11:51; 13:33; 
15:4, 6, 8, 9, 17, 25, 32; 19:10; John 6:39; 10:28; 
17:12; 2 Pet. 3:6, and other expressions. A study 
of these passages will show that the word does not 
with any uniformity, if at all, mean extinction of be- 
ing. Lake of fire: Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 13:42, 
50 ; 18 : 8, 9 ; 23 : 33 ; 25 : 41 ; Mark 9 : 43-48 ; Rev. 20 : 10, 
14, 15 ; 21 : 8; Luke 16: 23, 24. It is pretty evident that 
the idea of suffering, rather than that of annihilation, 
is prominent in these passages. Consumed or devoured: 
Isa. 1:28; Ps. 37:20; Heb. 10:27. Temporal evils are 
probably referred to, earthly possessions consumed. See 
other passages: Gen. 31:40; Ps. 31:10, 11; 39:11; 
69 : 10 ; Jer. 14 : 12 ; Gal. 5:15; Mark 12 : 40. Burned up 
and similar expressions: Ps. 21:10; 97:3; Mai. 4 : 1 ; 
Matt. 3:10; 13:40; John 15:6; Heb. 6:8; 10:27; 12: 
29; Rev. 20:9; but compare Ps. 102:4; Job 30:30; 
1 Kings 8:51; Deut. 4:20; Jer. 11:4; Eze. 22:19-22; 
1 Pet. 1 : 7 ; 4 : 12 ; 1 Cor. 3:15; Num. 21:28; Lam. 4:11. 
The words are often used in a figurative sense, and 
frequently to denote vengeance on those who still exist. 


182 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


We do not find in the use of these figurative terms any 
solid ground for the theory in question. Cut off: Ps. 
34 : 17 ; 37:9, 22, 28 ; but compare Isa. 53:8; Dan. 9:26; 
Job 6:9; Ps. 88 : 17 ; Matt. 24:50, 51. The words “ cut 
off ” appear to refer in almost all these texts to natural 
death; and it is hasty to infer from them the extinction 
of the soul along with the death of the body. Brought 
to nought: Ps. 37 : 10, 36 ; Job 7:21; 20 : 8 ; 8: 22; Obad. 
16 ; Isa. 41 : 1 1, 12 ; Jer. 10 : 24 (but compare Isa. 40 : 17 ; 
Ps. 39:5; 1 Cor. 7:19; 8:4; 2 Cor. 12 : 1 1 ; Gal. 6:3; 
Acts 5:36; Mark 9: 12). The former passages seem to 
speak of temporal judgments. Moreover the same form 
of speech is used in respect to the righteous and the 
wicked. And besides, the language is emotional rather 
than didactic, and hyperbolical rather than restrained. 

It seems to us, therefore, that this hypothesis rests on 
unstable foundations. And it is furthermore open to 
criticism on the ground that, if the penalty of sin is a 
loss of conscious being, that loss is the least evil to the 
most sinful, or rather it is the greatest gain to them, 
though it is a good rather than an evil to all the wicked. 
For, according to the belief of the advocates of this 
hypothesis, to live on, sinful and unforgiven, is a worse 
evil than extinction of being. 

(2) The final restoration of all to holiness, or the doc- 
trine of “ the larger hope/’ is supported by the same 
twofold argument, an appeal to reason and to Scripture. 

a. The endlejs presence of sin and suffering in .the 
universe is pronounced irreconcilable with the wisdom 
and love of God. Omnipotent wisdom and love will not 
permit such evils to be permanent. This is plausible ; but 
evidently we cannot determine, from our finite position, 
what omnipotence and love may permit in the realm of 
moral freedom, except as we study what has been per- 
mitted. Sin and pain have been permitted for periods 
of vast duration, and it is therefore rash for any finite 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 183 

understanding to conclude that they cannot be allowed 
to continue forever. 

b. The utter extinction of sin and suffering is pre- 
dicted by the Holy Scriptures through the ultimate tri- 
umph of grace. This prediction is found in the writings 
of Paul, but not, with any clearness, in the words of 
Jesus, or of any of his apostles, except Paul ; and we are 
constrained to believe that Paul did not intend to teach 
what is, perhaps, the literal and prima facie meaning of 
his language. It certainly depicts a vast extension of 
the reign of Christ in the hearts and lives of men. See 
Rom. 5 : 19 ; 1 1 : 25, 32 ; 14:12; 1 Cor. 15 : 28, 29 ; Phil. 
2:9-11; Col. 1 : 20. 

But when we compare these expressions with Col. 1 : 
23 ; Matt. 3 : 5, and Mark 1 : 5, the possibility of a mod- 
ified interpretation is forced upon our attention, i. e., 
the possibility that he meant to predict the establishment 
of perfect order through Christ — a vast majority of 
mankind being brought into loving submission to him, 
and all the rest, together with Satan and his angels, being 
deprived of opportunity, if no! of motive, to disturb his 
government. And when we compare the words of the 
Apostles with certain other statements of Scripture, e. g., 
2 Thess. 1:8, 9; Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Eph. 
5:5, 6; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 4:17, 18; 
Rev. 22: 15, some limitation of the literal force of the 
Universalistic passages seems unavoidable. 

c. It is therefore certain that ungodly men are ex- 
posed to punishment which will continue as long as they 
continue to be ungodly. Moral evil will always be fol- 
lowed by natural evil. Sin will always be witnessed 
against by loss and pain. The two are correlative in 
the whole universe of God. And both must be consist- 
ent with the love as well as the holiness of God. 

“ In the place we call hell, eternal love as really is as in the 
place we call heaven, though in the one case it is the com- 


184 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


placency or pleasure in the holy and the happy which 
seems like the brightness of everlasting sunshine or the glad 
music of waves that break into the perennial laughter, but in 
the other it is the compassion or pity for the bad and the 
miserable which seems like a face shaded with everlasting 
regret, or the muffled weeping of a sorrow too deep to be 
heard.” 1 

But natural evil is not simply retributive. It has also 
a beneficent office, or, rather, a double action, retributive 
and beneficent, beneficent in many cases, because retrib- 
utive. This is true of physical toil and suffering and 
death. The cloud of misery which overshadows human 
life has silver linings. The shortness of life and its un- 
certain duration, the hardness and sterility of the soil, the 
desolation and terror occasioned by pestilence and earth- 
quake and tornado, are preventives of moral evil and 
means of moral improvement. 

Says Prof. George I. Chace, “ Even death, the king of 
terrors, considered with reference to this world only, is not 
an unmixed evil. It is the great equalizer of the diversities 
of human fortune. It at the same time reconciles the poor 
man to his poverty, and makes the rich feel of how little 
value is his wealth. It chastens aspiration, moderates de- 
sire, subdues selfishness, quickens benevolence, strengthens 
duty, and disposes to the exercise of every Christian virtue. 
It is the moral ballast of society. But for its restraining 
and steadying effect, the noblest institutions, freighted with 
the hopes of the race, would quickly be dashed to pieces on 
the rocks of interest, or whelmed beneath the billows of 
passion.” 

Still more could be said of the beneficent mission of 
toil in consequence of the hardness and sterility of the 
ground. For men to whom self-indulgence is a second 
nature, the garden of Eden would be a temptation instead 

1 “ Religion in History and in Modern Life,” Fairbairn 
(A. M.), pp. 152, 153. 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 185 

of a temple, an occasion to vice instead of worship. For 
there is abundant truth in the saying, that “ Satan finds 
some mischief still for idle hands to do.” Most fortunate 
is it for the moral as well as the religious nature of men 
that their bodily wants are so imperative in their demands. 
For they can minister to those wants in themselves and 
their families with a good conscience, often tasking their 
powers severely to do what they know to be their duty. 
What reason is there to believe they would meanwhile 
avoid courses of sin, if they had not these tasks to 
fulfill? 

It is unnecessary to consider other instances. Phys- 
ical toil and pain and death might not be useful to holy 
beings. They would be perhaps a mystery if there were 
no sinners in the world. But it is seen that, during a 
period of moral probation, some degree of penal suffering 
is better for sinners than unmixed prosperity. For it 
operates, on the one hand, as a reminder of sin, and on 
the other as a timely and gracious warning, having in 
it the possibility, if not the promise, of true life forever. 
Its retributive nature is the source of its beneficent 
power; the fact that it is a token of God’s displeasure 
zvith sin is the reason zvhy it acts as a zvarning against 
sin and as an argument for holiness. Till probation ends 
and the possibility of recovery disappears, penal evil has 
always two aspects, retributive and reformatory, severe 
and gracious. 


Appendix 


Reference has been made, in speaking of creation, of 
providence, and of the fall, to moral beings called Angels, 
who appear to have been regarded by the Saviour as 
having more or less to do with mankind, but not as being 
members of the human family nor as having genetic 
relations to one another. Their existence offers a wide 
outlook to students who are interested in the vastness 
and variety of the created universe, but is specially im- 
portant because of their connection with the government 
of God over human beings. When it is said by Jesus 
Christ that “ Lazarus died and was carried by the angels 
into Abraham’s bosom,” and also, in his picture of the 
final judgment, to those on his left hand, “ Depart from 
me, accursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for 
the devil and his angels,” no one is permitted to doubt 
the wisdom of giving a brief examination to the 

Biblical Doctrine of Angels 1 

It may be premised ( I ) that the word “ angels ” is 
here used to denote rational beings distinct from man- 
kind; (2) that our knowledge of such beings is derived 

1 See on the whole subject, Ode (J.), “ Commentarius de An- 
gelis,” 1739; Twesten (A. D. C.), “ Dogmatik,” II, 305-383, in 
Bib. Sac. I, 768-793, II, 108-140; Mayor (L.), “Scriptural Idea 
of Angels,” in Am. Bib. Repos., Oct. 1838, XII, 356-388; Stuart 
(M.), “ Sketches of Angelology in the Old and New Test.,” Bib. 
Sac. I, 88-154; Whately (R.), “Scripture Revelations respecting 
Good and Evil Angels”; Timpson (T.), “The Angels of God; 
their Nature, Character, Ranks,” etc., 2d ed., London, 1847; 
Raivson (J.), “Nature and Ministry of the Holy Angels,” N. Y., 

186 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 187 

from the Bible alone; (3) that the Bible speaks of them 
because of their connection with men in certain relations 
and events ; (4) that Satan and demons will be regarded 
as fallen angels; and (5) that other applications of the 
term “ angels ” will not be considered in this place. See 
Gen. 16:7, 10, 13; 18:13 sq.; Eccl. 5:6; Isa. 42:19; 
Mai. 3 : 1 ; 1 Sam. 11:3; Ps. 104 : 4. 

1. The nature of angels ; or, in other words, their 
essence , their power , and their knozvledge. 

(1) The essence or substance of angels. It has been 
commonly believed by Christians that angels are personal 
beings who exist without bodies. And, in support of 
this belief, reference is made, a. to passages of Scrip- 
ture which call them “ spirits ” : for example, Heb. 1:14; 
1 Kings 22:21; Mark 9:20, 25; Luke 24:39; 1 Sam. 
16:14, 16, 23; 18:10; 19:9; Luke 7:21; 8:2; Acts 
19: 12, 15; 1 Tim. 4:1. b. To passages which represent 
them as God’s attendants and ministers : Luke 1 : 19; Gen. 
32:1, 2; Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:18; Matt. 24:31; 26:53; 
Luke 15: 10. c. To passages which represent them as 
superior to the known laws of matter: Acts 12: 7; Num. 
22:23-27, 32, 33; 1 Chron. 21:14-16, 27. d. To pas- 
sages which represent them as taking possession of men : 
Matt. 12 : 26-29 ; Luke 4 : 33, 35, 36, 41, and many others. 
Taken by themselves, these passages afford very con- 
siderable evidence that angels are bodiless. 

But against this belief and evidence, the following ar- 
guments have been brought: 

(a) The words of Christ in Luke 20:36, which are 
supposed to prove that angels have bodies similar to 
those of the glorified saints; for the saints after the 
resurrection are said to be “ like angels.” Yet the words 
of Christ, strictly interpreted, only prove that glorified 

1858; also articles in Herzog, Smith, Kitto, Fairbairn, McClin- 
tock, and Strong; and Theologies, e. g., Hahn (G. L.), “Die 
Theologie des N. T.,” p. 259 sq. 


i88 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


saints will not marry, because they cannot die ; and they 
cannot die because they are like angels, being sons of 
God. They may, then, be different from angels, in that 
they have immortal bodies, while they are like them in 
the particulars named by Christ. 

(b) The words of Jude 6-8 are supposed to attribute 
a carnal nature to certain angels, and indeed to have ref- 
erence to the wickedness described in Gen. 6:2, 4. It 
is argued that the expression “ sons of God,” in the latter 
passage, signifies angels. First, Because the same expres- 
sion denotes angels in other parts of the Bible; for ex- 
ample, Job 1 : 6 ; 2 : 1 ; 38 : 7 ; Ps. 82 : 7 ; Luke 20 : 36. But 
it is replied that pious men are virtually called “ sons of 
God ” in the Old Testament ; for example, Ex. 4:22; 
Deut. 14:1; 32 : 5 ; Ps. 73:15; Hosea 2:2; and that all 
Christians are represented as “ sons of God ” in the New 
Testament; for example, Gal. 3:26; 4:5, 6. Secondly, 
Because the manifest contrast between “ sons of God ” 
and “ daughters of men ” requires us to interpret the 
former of superhuman beings, — that is, angels. This 
contrast, however, is sufficiently marked by supposing 
the former to have been the pious descendants of Seth; 
while the latter were the ungodly descendants of Cain. 
“ That view of Gen. 6: 1-8 is most probable which under- 
stands the sons of God as prominent men resembling the 
gods. We are not to understand thereby demons, for 
only beings of the same species can have fruitful sexual 
intercourse, but demoniacal men who became the instru- 
ments of demons.” 1 Thirdly, Because this passage, thus 
interpreted, explains the otherwise unintelligible ref- 
erence in Jude. This may be admitted, and still the 
inquiry be raised whether it is not better to leave the 
reference in Jude obscure and doubtful than to suppose 

1 “ Old Testament History of Redemption,” p. 35, by De- 
litzsch (F.). 


mankind: nature, CHARACTER, CONDITION 189 

evil angels capable of the unnatural offence ascribed to 
them by the proposed interpretation. 1 

(c) Many passages of Scripture represent angels as 
appearing to men in visible forms: Gen. 18: 1-9; Luke 
24:4; Acts 1:10. To this it may be replied ’ that in 
order to appear at all, they must assume a form of some 
kind, and a human form would be more suitable than any 
other. Besides, they are represented, also, as eating 
human food; and, if we infer that their corporeal appear- 
ance was normal, shall we not be constrained to infer 
that their eating of flesh, etc., was also normal ? 

(d) The existence of finite beings who are incorporeal 
is said to be absurd. Bodies are necessary to bring them 
under the laws of space. They must have a material 
7 rov arco, and this must be a living body. But who knows 
this to be true ? Our experience may be of little value in 
showing the possibilities of existence. With the same 
boldness, some say that an Infinite Being cannot know or 
will. 2 

On the whole, the weight of evidence in support of 
the belief that angels are incorporeal beings is greater 
than that which favors the opposite belief, — “ Adhuc 
sub judice lis est.” 

(2) The power of angels. This must be very great 
as compared with that of men: Ps. 103:20; 2 Peter 
2 : 1 1 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 7. Both of the words in the first pas- 
sage refer properly to strength or power, — mighty in 
power, or strong in might. Both of the terms used to 
define the superiority of angels in the second passage 
denote power, in the proper sense of the word. And an- 
gels are described, in the third, as “ the angels of his 
might,” meaning, those by whom the power of the Lord 

1 See Hofmann, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Knobel, Ka- 
lisch; and, on the other hand, Keil, Reinke, Vol. V, Calvin, and 
a great majority of interpreters. 

2 See Bib. Sac., Oct. 1876, p. 740 sq. 


190 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Jesus will be wielded, or, at least, fitly represented, at 
his appearing. 

To these statements, and to others of a similar character 
found in Scripture, may be added the fact that God is 
often called “ Jehovah of hosts,” because the angels, as 
a great army, do his bidding ; and, from the way in which 
this designation is applied, we naturally infer that the 
soldiers of the heavenly host are mighty and glorious, 
answering, in some slight degree, and far better than any 
earthly beings, to the greatness of God. The following 
passages are also worthy of notice, as they indicate the 
might of certain angels, if not of all : Rev. 5 : 2 ; 10:1; 
18: 21 ; 20: 1-3. 

Yet the power of angels is strictly finite, and, there- 
fore, as nothing in comparison with that of God. They 
are never represented as sharing in the work of cre- 
ation; and they are always described as subject to God or 
to Christ. See Heb. 1 : 14 ; 2 : 5 ; Jude 9. 

(3) The knowledge of angels, a. That this is very 
great, as compared with that of men in the present life, 
may be inferred (a) from the language of Christ as pre- 
served in Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; for obviously this 
language is ascensive or climacteric, assuming a greater 
knowledge on the part of angels than on the part of men. 
The belief of the Jews in the time of David is probably 
indicated by the words of the wise woman of Tekoah to 
David: 2 Sam. 14: 17, 20; but we cannot appeal to that 
belief as certainly correct, (b) From the circumstance 
that they appear to have been for a long time at home 
with God: Deut. 33:2; Isa. 6:3; Matt. 18:10; 22:30. 
We do not, it is true, know the time when the angels were 
created; but it is generally supposed that their creation 
preceded that of men, if not of the whole visible universe : 
Job 38:7. (c) From the devout interest or curiosity 

which they are said to feel in the work of divine grace: 
1 Peter 1:12; Luke 2 : 13 sq. ; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ; 


mankind: nature, character, condition 19 1 

5:21 (cf. Rev. 5: 11, 12). (d) from instances of de- 

moniac and satanic intelligence recorded in the gospels : 
Mark 1:24; 5: 1 sq. (cf. Acts 19: 15). 

b. But it is evident from the same passages that the 
knowledge of angels is limited, and, in this respect, unlike 
that of God. Indeed, it is by no means certain that either 
good or evil angels can know what are the thoughts of 
any man by direct intuition, though they may be marvel- 
lously sagacious in conjecturing human thoughts. Nei- 
ther Gabriel nor Satan is to be supposed omniscient and 
omnipresent. 

II. The character of angels. The word “ character ” 
is here used as a synonym for moral character, and in 
this respect angels may be said to form two perfectly 
distinct classes. For, — 

1. Many of them are sinless. This may be inferred 
(1) from the epithets applied to them by the sacred 
writers: Acts 10:22; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Cor. 11:14; cf. 
Deut. 33 : 2 ; Zech. 14 : 5. In the second passage referred 
to, they are called “ elect angels ” ; probably because they 
hold some such relation to other angels as the “ elect ” 
among men do to other men. Ellicott says, “ With such 
passages as 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, before us, it seems im- 
possible to doubt that the ‘ elect angels ’ are those who 
kept their first estate , and who shall form part of that 
countless host: Jude 14; Dan. 8: 10; that shall attend 
the Lord’s second advent.” According to Thayer’s Lexi- 
con of the New Testament, “ Angels are called ‘ elect ' 
as those whom God has chosen out from other cfeated 
beings to be peculiarly associated with him, and his high- 
est ministers in governing the universe.” (2) From the 
place where they dwell: Luke 1:19; 12:8, 9; Matt. 18: 
10; Mark 12:25; Rev. 5 : n. It is impossible to sup- 
pose that impure beings would be represented as having 
their home with God in heaven. (3) From the worship 
which they are said to pay unto God : Rev. 5 : 1 1 ; 7:11 


192 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sq. ; Isa. 6: 3. (4) From the offices which they are said 

to perform: Gen. 28:12; Matt. 26:53; Luke 22:43; 
16:22; Heb. 1 : 14 ; cf. Heb. 13:2. 

As to the present character of this class of angels, the 
teaching of the Bible is sufficiently explicit. But the 
history of mankind naturally suggests to us many queries 
in respect to the history of holy angels ; for example, 

a. Were they ever in a state of probation? Were 
they once tried, as were our first parents, to see if they 
would remain obedient to God? An affirmative answer 
may be given, with some confidence, to this question; 
both because such a trial seems necessary in itself to the 
proper training of moral beings under God, and also 
because certain angels appear to have fallen away from 
their allegiance to God. 

b. Are they now in a state of probation? Probably 
not; or, at least, in no other sense than a moral being is 
always under probation ; in no other sense than glorified 
men will be under probation hereafter. 

c. Have they always been holy, or have they been 
recovered from a sinful state? There appears to be no 
evidence in the Bible, unless it be the use of the word 
“ elect ” in 1 Tim. 5:21, that any of the holy angels were 
ever guilty of sin; and this adjective is not sufficient to 
justify us in supposing a fall and recovery of good 
angels. 1 

d. Is their stability in virtue due, in part, to either 
angelic or human apostacy? It may be. Beholding 
the ruin that has overtaken other offenders, they may 
have been forewarned, and, seeing the wonders of re- 
demption, they may have learned to love more than they 
otherwise would. 

e. Is their blessedness due at all to the work of Christ? 
Certainly, it is; for they take a profound interest in 
his work and the glory of his kingdom ; but it is un- 

1 See Thayer’s Lexicon. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 193 

safe to infer, from Eph. 1 : 10 and Col. 1 : 20, that they 
have any need of the atonement as a means of redemp- 
tion. These passages, however, indicate the unity of 
God’s moral government, and the reason why some knowl- 
edge of angels is given. 

2. Many of them are sinful. This may be learned ( 1 ) 
from the epithets which are applied to them ; for example, 
Matt. 10:1; Mark 3:11; Luke 9:42; Matt. 12:45; 
Luke 8:2; Acts 19: 12-16. (2) From the place where 

they are said to dwell; for example, 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 
6; Luke 8:31; Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:7, 10. (3) 

From the work which they are said to perform; for 
example, Job 1:6-9; 2 :i sq. ; Zech. 3:1, 2; 1 Sam. 
16:14; 18:10; 1 Kings 22:21 sq. ; Zech. 13:2; Rev. 
12:10; Matt. 13:39; Luke 8: 12; John 8:44; 13:2; 
1 Tim. 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:26; 1 Peter 5:8; Eph. 6:11, 
12; 1 Tim. 4: 1. 

Several queries are also suggested by the language of 
Scripture in respect to evil spirits ; for example : 

a. Are demons, together with Satan, fallen angels? 
We have assumed this to be the meaning of Scripture, 
and would refer to the following passages in support of 
our assumption: 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6. But some have 
insisted that Satan was never a holy being, appealing to 
the following passages: John 8:44; 1 John 3:8; Rev. 
12:9. ^ 1S > however, incorrect to suppose that the 

phrase, “ from the beginning/’ as used by John, refers 
to any other beginning than that spoken of in Gen. 1:1. 
The sinfulness of Satan antedates that of mankind. He 
has been known to our race in no other character than 
that of a tempter and seducer. To suppose that he was 
created morally evil is absurd ; and to suppose that he is 
uncreated is to deny the supremacy of God. The only 
view consistent with biblical monotheism is that of his 
early apostacy ; and, if he apostatized, so also did his 
angels, — that is, the demons. 


T 94 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

b. Are they all doomed to eternal punishment? The 
Bible appears to teach this.: Matt. 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4; 
Rev. 20:2, 3, 10; (cf. Eph. 1:10, 21, 22; Col. 1:20; 1 
Cor. 15:25). The passages inclosed in parentheses have 
been thought by some to predict a final restoration of 
all beings, including fallen angels, to the favor of God; 
but they do not seem to me to warrant such a view. 

c. Has the recovery of their forfeited state ever been 
possible ? The Bible nowhere intimates that it has ; while 
the most natural inference from the language of Peter 
and Jude is, that it has not. Many modern critics affirm 
that the language of Peter and Jude can only be recon- 
ciled with that of other parts of Scripture, by supposing 
that some of the apostate angels have been kept in close 
confinement since their fall, while others have been 
allowed to roam abroad and tempt mankind. But this 
view is precarious; and, even if it were correct, it would 
not prove that any offer of pardon has been made to the 
unconfined apostates. Besides, the Bible seems to assign 
the first place in evil to Satan, who is certainly repre- 
sented, as in some sense, free to wander up and down the 
earth, tempting mankind. Perhaps Tartarus is not so 
much a place as a state, and the confinement not so much 
local as moral and providential. 

d. In what did the peculiar enormity of their original 
sin consist? Any reply to this must be conjectural. It 
is evident, however, that one, at least, of the angels must 
have sinned without being tempted thereto by any living 
being; but it is improbable that this was the case with all. 
Hence, the enormity of their sin must be sought in some- 
thing else. Perhaps it was in this, that they had greater 
knowledge of God than was possessed by Adam and 
Eve, — a knowledge due either to their longer life before 
sin, or to their closer relation to God, or to both these 
circumstances combined. 

e. Have we any right to say that their sin was greater 


mankind: nature, character, condition 195 

than that of our first parents ? Hither their sin was 
greater, or some other circumstance rendered the course 
which was- taken with men less appropriate for them. 
The government of God is always determined by suffi- 
cient reasons. It is holy and wise. 

III. The employment of angels. 

1. Of good angels. This is indicated (1) By the 
names which are given to them in the sacred record: in 
Hebrew, properly an abstract noun, signifying 

execution, service, sending, but generally used as a con- 
crete meaning, a. messenger, and b. messenger of 
God; in Greek, <*776X0? , signifying also (a) messenger, 
and (b) messenger of God. It is to be observed that 
Hebrew names were often significant of the office or 
character of those to whom they were given. In this case, 
obviously, the name was derived from the office or em- 
ployment, — that is, from the employment of this order 
of beings with reference to men. But it would be a 
hasty inference should we say that, because they are 
called angels, their time is mostly given to the work of 
bearing messages from God to his creatures. In respect 
to men only can their name justify such an inference. 
As known by men, they are God’s messengers. 

The same is proved (2) by the actions ascribed to them 
by the same authority. See 1 Kings 19:55 Matt. 1:20; 
2:13, 19; Luke 1 : 11 sq. ; Acts’ 5: 19; 8:26; 12:7; 
Heb. 1:14; Ps. 91:12; Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:18; Acts 
7 : 53 ; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2. From these passages we 
conclude that angels were often employed by Jehovah 
as his messengers to men, that they took some part in 
delivering the law on Sinai to Moses, and that they 
execute the will of God among men whenever he pleases, 
be that will gracious or retributive. 

(3) But it has been asserted with confidence, that par- 
ticular men or nations or elements are intrusted to the 
care of particular angels, who are therefore called 


196 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

“ guardian angels”: Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15; Dan. 
10 : 5 sq. 20, 21 ; 12:1; Rev. 7:1,2; 14:8; 16:5; 19:17. 
In Matt. 18:10, it is said of believers in Christ that 
“ their angels do always behold the face of my Father 
who is in heaven ” ; but this may only signify that the 
angels who are ministering spirits to Christians dwell in 
heaven as their home, and are permitted to see God face 
to face. It does not prove that a particular angel is put 
in charge of a particular believer ; nor does it prove that 
angels spend most of their time in serving the heirs of 
salvation. 

In Acts 12: 15, an expression is used which implies a 
belief in the doctrine of “ guardian angels,” and also a 
belief that each man’s angel appeared sometimes in the 
semblance of the person himself. But we do not know 
who the speakers were ; they may not have been inspired 
persons ; and nowhere else in the Bible is there any trace 
of this supposed imitation of the form or voice of par- 
ticular men. 1 Owing to the dramatic and symbolical 
character of Revelation, it seems to be unsafe to rely upon 
the representations which it gives of angels as literally 
exact; and therefore the doctrine of tutelary angels is 
nowhere taught, unless it be in the book of Daniel. 

In Dan. 10:21, a heavenly messenger addressing 
Daniel uses the expression, “ Michael, your prince ” ; 
and in 12: 1 it is said that “ in those days shall Michael 
stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children 
of thy people.” Here, certainly, a particular angel may 
be meant, who was charged with the duty of guarding 
the interests of the chosen people; but whether he did 
this always, or only at a certain crisis of their history, is 
not stated. More exactly, it is only stated that he did 
this at a certain crisis. The doctrine of tutelary angels 
does not, therefore, seem to be clearly taught in the holy 
Scriptures. 

1 See Wetstein ad loc. and the note of Hackett. 


mankind: nature, character, CONDITION 197 

(4) It has been supposed that the holy angels are, in 
some real sense, an organized community, kingdom, or 
army: See Luke 2:13; Rev. 12:7; 19:14; 2 Pet. 
2:11; 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9; cf. Luke 1:19; Rev. 
8:2, 6; Rom. 8:38; 1 Pet. 3:22; Eph. 3:10; Col. 
2:10, 15; Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16. Also Eph. 3:15; 
Heb. 12:22, 23. From these passages it may be inferred, 
a. that holy angels do not live and act every one by 
himself, but rather in sublime order and concert, b. 
That some of them are distinguished for wisdom and 
strength above their fellows, and are, therefore, under 
Christ, leaders of the celestial host. c. That these 
leaders have different degrees of authority, according to 
their several ability. Hahn classifies them thus: (a) 
Archangels (especially Michael), or those who stand 
before God. (b) Primacies, ap^at. Thrones, Opovou, 
or authorities, i^ovaiai. Powers, hwapeis. (c) Lord- 
ships, /cvpioTrjres. (d) That something analogous to 
tribal or local divisions may exist among them. Yet this 
is by no means certain: Eph. 3:15. 

(5) It has likewise been supposed that the holy angels 
are very numerous: Matt. 26:53; Heb. 1:14; 12:22; 
Rev. 5:11; Dan. 7: 9, 10. The word of God, it will be 
seen, fully justifies the belief referred to. But whether 
the unfallen angels outnumber the fallen, we cannot tell, 
though it would be pleasant to suppose that they do. 

(6) No religious veneration should be paid to angels: 
Col. 2:18; Rev. 19: 10; 22:8, 9. Neither should they 
be invoked as advocates of men before the throne of 
God ; for there is one Mediator between God and men ; 
and, besides, angels are not omnipresent. 

Remark: The doctrine of angels, and especially of 
good angels, “ renders more clear our conception of the 
all-surpassing majesty of God, — of the divine greatness 
of the Lord, and of the glory of his yet future appear- 
ing. ... It raises man, by reminding him of his exalted 


198 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

rank and high destiny : Matt. 22 : 30. It shames the 
sinner, by asserting to him the possibility of a normal 
development of spiritual beings, and at the same time by 
showing to him their interest in the work of his conver- 
sion. It directs the Christian to a lofty source of conso- 
lation: Ps. 91 : 11, 12; an excellent example: Matt. 6:10, 
and a heart-cheering perspective: Hebrews 12:22.” 1 

We come now — 

2. To the employment of evil angels, which may be 
treated briefly, since it is, speaking generally, just the 
opposite of that to which good angels are devoted. The 
kind of activity characteristic of evil spirits is indicated, 
(1) By the names given to their chief — namely, adver- 
sary, slanderer, and perhaps Apollyon: 1 Chron. 21:1; 
Matt. 4:1; 9:34; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 9:11; 12:9, 10. 
His followers are like him, working toward the same end 
which he seeks. (2) By the actions ascribed to him or 
to them : 1 Chron. 21:1; Job. 1:6 sq. ; Luke 8 : 12 ; 
John 13:2; 2 Cor. 11:14; 1 Tim. 3:6; 4:1; 2 Tim. 
2:26; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 20: 1, 3. (3) By their taking 

possession of men. 1 

We mention the last item separately, because it seems 
to have been limited to a brief period of time. From the 
accounts in the New Testament, we conclude a. That 
evil spirits can so unite themselves to a human being as 
to control his bodily organs, causing dumbness or blind- 
ness : Matt. 9:32; 12:22; Luke 11:14. b. That they 
can thereby produce or aggravate disease, — as insanity, 
epilepsy, lunacy, emaciation: Matt. 8:28; 17:15 sq. ; 

1 Oosterzee, J. J. Van. 

2 See Farmer on “ Demoniacs ” ; Owen, “ Demonology of the 
New Testament,” Bib. Sac., 16:116; “Demoniacal Possessions 
of the New Testament,” Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev., 1865, 495 
sq. ; Hovey on “The Miracles of Christ,” ch. 4; Smith’s Die. of 
the Bible, art. “ Demon ” ; Kitto’s Cyclop, of Bib. Lit., art. 
“Demon”; Kitto’s Jour., 4:1; 7:394; Meth. Quart. Review, 
x:2i3; “Appleton’s Works,” 2:94. 


mankind: nature, character, condition 199 

Mark 9: 18; 5:3 sq. ; Luke 8:28, 29; 9:39. c. That 
their presence was revealed by some peculiarity unknown 
to us at the present day. d. That their usurped control 
over the bodily organs of men was not confined to those 
preeminently wicked : Mark 9 : 14-28. e. With reference 
to the demons, their removal was called a “ casting- 
out”: Matt. 8:16; 10: 1, 8; Mark 1:34, 39; with ref- 
erence to the demoniacs, a “healing”: Matt. 15:28; 
Luke 6: 18; J: 21. f. Some of the Jews claimed to cast 
out demons : Matt. 12 : 27. 1 Whether Christ indorsed the 
correctness of their claim is doubtful, g. Evil angels 
are spoken of as a kingdom: Matt. 12:26; Mark 3:24; 
Luke 1 1 : 18 ; Rev. 12:7, with a ruler at their head : Matt. 
9:34; 12 : 24 ; 25 : 41 ; Rev. 12:7, 9 ; 2 Cor. 12 : 7. This 
ruler is called by way of eminence, the wicked one: 
Matt. 5: 37; 6: 13; 13: 19, 38; John 17: 15; 1 John 2 : 13, 
14; 3:12; 5:18, 19; Eph. 6:16; 2 Thess. 3:3; the 
Satan : Matt. 12:26; the devil : Matt. 13:39; the enemy : 
Matt. 13:25; the adversary: 1 Tim. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:8; 
the accuser of the brethren: Rev. 12: 10; the spirit of 
error: 1 John 4:6; the ruler of this world: John 12:31; 
16 : 1 1 ; (cf. 14 : 30) ; the god of this world : 2 Cor. 4:4; 
the old serpent: Rev. 12:9; 20:2; the great dragon: 
Rev. 12:3, 4 sq. ; 13:2, 4. 1 This same prince of the 
demons is represented as ruling over mankind: 1 John 
5: 19; John 14:30; 12:31; 16: 11 ; 2 Cor. 4: 4. 

The language of these and other passages of the New 
Testament is very strong. Satan is even represented as 
having in some sense the power of death; which, how- 
ever, cannot mean that he has power to take the lives of 
men at will, or that he is the one who does put an end 
to the natural lives of most men : Heb. 2 : 14. It may 
be worthy of notice that Satan’s subordinates also bear 

1 Josephus, Antiq. 8, 2, 5. 

2 “ Army of fiends, fit body to fit head ” ( Milton , “ Par. Lost,” 
4 : 953 ). 


200 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sway over men: Eph. 6: 12. To many minds the idea 
of such a kingdom is very awful; they prefer to think 
of evil spirits as acting without concert; but this is not 
the doctrine of the New Testament. There is order in 
their madness. Still, their power over men is limited. 
They can do nothing without man’s consent; and their 
apparent victories lead only to a complete overthrow. 

Queries. ( a ) Are demons still permitted to take pos- 
session of men as in the time of Christ? We are not 
aware of any evidence that would justify an affirmative 
answer to this question. 

( b ) If not, why were they permitted to do it then? 
Possibly that the lordship of Christ over the invisible 
world might be signally revealed, even in his humiliation. 
“ The clearest revelation of heaven,” says Macmillan, 
“ is the necessary correlative of the clearest revelation 
of hell.” Satan has been called “ Dei Simius,” the ape of 
God ; “ He can only sow tares, — an imitation of wheat.” 

(c) Are the rappings, table-movings, etc., of modern 
times, the direct work of evil spirits? From the best 
evidence we have, it seems to us more likely that they 
are of mundane origin. 

( d ) Have evil angels any special connection with 
pagan deities? 1 Cor. 10:20, 21; 8:4. No other con- 
nection than they have with all great manifestations of 
sin in the world. In the last passage Paul says : coaTrep 
elal Oeol 7 roXXot /cal KvpiOL rroWoi , — thus affirming that 
in some sense, there are “ gods many and lords many,” 
and in the first that what the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
sacrifice to demons and not to God. Putting these 
together it may be just to conclude that Paul regarded 
the idolatries of heathenism as virtually under the control 
of evil spirits. 

( e ) Will evil spirits resume their former modes of ac- 
tion at any future period ? Rev. 20 : 8. Possibly, yet with 
variations adapted to the weakness of man at the time. 


PART THIRD 

JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 


201 






































































































•r 
































































PART THIRD 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 

The Apostle declares, that “ when the fulness of the 
time ” was come, God sent his Son into the world : Gal. 
4:4; and by “ the fulness of the time ” must be un- 
derstood that which filled up the period that was to 
elapse, according to the counsel of God, before Christ 
should be born. But Paul does not state in this place 
the reason why God had fixed the final term of the 
ante-Christian period at that point of time. 

Yet the circumstances of the time, in many respects, 
were suited to this supreme event in the history of man- 
kind; for (1) The vast Roman Empire offered a broad 
and accessible field for the spread of the new religion. 
(2) The Greek language was widely known, and was 
the best possible medium for imparting to men the truths 
of that religion. (3) A deep distrust of the “gods 
many,” which their fathers worshipped, had sunk into 
the hearts of great multitudes of the pagan world. (4) 
Acquaintance with Oriental nations had stimulated reli- 
gious inquiry in the West, and had awakened an expec- 
tation of new light from the East. (5) Glimpses of 
spiritual truth had quickened the minds of some among 
the philosophers of Greece, and had led them to long 
for clearer light. (6) The tendency to idol worship 
and polytheism among the Jews had been conquered. 
And (7) in many hearts a longing for the promised Mes- 
siah had been kindled to a fervent heat. (8) This long- 
ing had reached its highest aim and greatest fervor under 
the preaching of John the Baptist. But the religious 

203 


204 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


preparation of the people for the true Messiah had been 
sought by the providence of God during more than a 
thousand years. By the teaching of prophets and priests, 
by temple sacrifice and song, by discipline through sore 
adversity and strange deliverance, and, at last, by syna- 
gogue worship and exhortation, the Jews had been 
finally weaned from idolatry and led to a strict mono- 
theism. The law had done its work, and some of the 
nation were waiting for the consolation of Israel. What 
more could be done for the Lord’s vineyard than had 
already been done? 

Believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised 
Messiah for whose advent the nations had been suffi- 
ciently prepared, we have reached in him the central fact 
of our religion and theme of our study — Jesus the Lamb 
of God who takes away the sin of the world. And the 
first question to be answered is this : Was he a mere man, 
a simple human being? Or was he divine as well as 
human, a strictly theanthropic being? Any worthy 
answer to these questions must be derived from a patient 
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. In attempting 
such an interpretation one may begin with the proofs of 
his humanity and advance to the proofs of his divinity, 
or may reverse the process and, beginning with the proofs 
of his divinity, conclude with the proofs of his humanity. 
The result ought to be the same in either case. In the 
following pages the second course has been taken, and 
considerably more space has been given to the evidence 
that Jesus was divine than to the evidence that he was 
human : — not, however, because the one truth is more 
interesting than the other, but because it is far oftener 
doubted or denied. 


CHAPTER I 


I. Person of Jesus Christ 


NDER this head will be considered the evidence 



that Christ was divine, was human, was uni- 
personal, and was affected in his divinity and his 
humanity by the incarnation. 

On all these topics differences of belief prevail ; and it 
is therefore desirable to make the examination as thor- 
ough and impartial as possible without prolixity. 


I. Jesus Christ as Divine 1 


Evidence that Jesus Christ , by virtue of his higher 
nature , was truly God, may be found, i. In the lan- 
guage of the Old Testament. ( i ) In respect to the angel 
of Jehovah; and (2) in respect to the Messiah to come. 
2. In the language of Christ concerning himself, as re- 
corded. (1) In the Synoptical Gospels; (2) In the fourth 
Gospel, and (3) In the book of Revelation. 3. In the 
language of the New Testament writers concerning him, 
as found (1) In the first three gospels, and in the 
Epistles of James, Jude, and Peter; (2) In the writings 
of Paul, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews; and 

1 Liddon (H. P.), “The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ,” nth ed., 1885; Parker ( J. ) , “ Ecce Deus”; Bush- 
nell (H.), “The Character of Jesus, Forbidding His Possible 
Classification with Men”; Fairbairn (A. M.), “The Place of 
Christ in Modern Theology,” pp. 303 ff. ; Barclay (S. M.), “The 
Self-Revealing Jehovah of the Old Testament = the Christ of 
the New Testament”; Leathes (S.), “The Witness of the Old 
Testament to Christ” 


205 


206 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


(3) In the writings of John, — Gospel, Epistles, and 
Revelation. 

1. In the Language of the Old Testament. There 
are two classes of passages in the Old Testament which 
may be examined in order to ascertain whether they cast 
any light on the higher nature of Christ. In form, one 
of them is historical and the other prophetic. One of 
them records the appearances of a mysterious being 
called the Angel of Jehovah, and the other anticipates 
the reign of a mighty and righteous r.uler, sometimes 
called “ the son of God.” The question as to the former 
class is this, Do they refer to a truly Divine Being, or to 
a created messenger of God? And the question as to 
the latter is, Do they suggest a truly Divine Being or 
simply exaggerate the greatness of a human Ruler ? 

(1) To begin with the former class, the following pas- 
sages may be referred to: Gen. 16: 7, 10, 13; 18: 1, 2, 3, 
13, 17 f.; (cf. 17:1 f.); 31:11-13; (cf. 28:11, 22); 
32:25-31; (cf. Hos. 12:4); 48: 15, 16; Ex. 3 passim; 
23 : 20-23 ; (cf. Isa. 42 : 8) ; 32 : 34; 33 : 3, 14; (cf. 2 Sam. 
17:11); Deut. 4:37; Isa. 63 : 8, 9. Hence “ the angel of 
Jehovah,” “ the angel of God,” “ the angel that wrestled 
with Jacob,” that “ redeemed Israel from all evil,” “ the 
angel in whom is God’s name,” “ the angel of his pres- 
sence,” and “ his presence ” are appellations of a being 
who is also called by himself or by the sacred writers 
“ God,” “ Jehovah,” and “ I am that I am,” or simply “ I 
Am ” ; it may therefore be inferred that the two sets of 
designations are in some way equivalent, or at least ap- 
plicable to the same person. 

a. Dr. Goodspeed analyzes the literary phenomena as 
follows: (a) “ He frequently applies to himself the name 
Elohim and Jehovah, also, ‘ I am that I am.’ (b) He 
speaks with absolute and independent authority, as if 
a divine person. (c) He accepts and exacts divine 
honor and worship, as in sacrifice, (d) Scripture writ- 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 20 7 

ers apply to him the divine names, Elohim and Je- 
hovah.” 1 

b. It will be observed that the sensible appearance or 
sign-presence of this being was variable; sometimes it 
was flame-like, as in the bush and over the camp by night, 
yet without producing the ordinary effect of flame; 
sometimes cloud-like, as over the camp by day, yet with- 
out having all the properties of a cloud; sometimes like 
an earthquake or strong wind, sometimes like a still, 
small voice; and sometimes with the looks and bearing 
of man, yet appearing and vanishing strangely. The 
sensible manifestation was scarcely adapted to suggest 
a definite order of created being. But the office was 
that of representing God or Jehovah, and in no instance 
was there any reluctance shown to having worship paid 
him by men. 

c. The fact, however, that he was sent, that he was 
a messenger from God, is sufficient to prove that he was 
not revealed to the prophets as God in an absolute sense, 
though he might well be a representative of God. His 
work was to some extent that of a mediator between God 
and his people, and thus identical in quality with that of 
Jesus Christ, to whom the name angel or apostle is once 
applied in the New Testament: Heb. 3:1. The cor- 
responding verb is often used in the fourth Gospel with 
reference to the mission of Christ : John 3 : 17, 34 ; 5 : 36 ; 
6:29, 57; 7: 29;. 17: 3, 8, 21. 

d. Moreover, the angel of Jehovah or Jehovah’s face 
seems to be identified with the higher nature of Christ by 
some of the New Testament writers : for example, 1 
Cor. 10:4; (cf. Ex. 23:20, 21; Judges 2:1-5); Luke 
1 : 15-17; (cf. Mai. 3: 1-24). According to the Apostle 
the apparent source of the water furnished to the Isra- 
elites was indeed a natural rock, but the real source was 
Christ. He it was who accompanied them and by his 

1 Bib. Sac., July, 1879. 


2o8 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


power made the rocks springs of living water to relieve 
their thirst. 

If we interpret these historical accounts of the Angel 
of Jehovah in the Old Testament by what John says in 
the prologue to his Gospel, that the eternal Word was the 
light of men from the beginning, we shall agree with 
Justin Martyr and a long succession of Christian teachers 
that the person so designated was Christ in his higher 
nature which became flesh and tabernacled among men. 
This mediating angel prepared the way for his own 
greater work in the fulness of the time. 

(2) There is another class of representations in the 
Old Testament which are evidently prophetic , embracing 
parts or the whole of such Psalms as the 2d, the 45th, 
the 72d, the noth, with a number of paragraphs in the 
prophetic books. How are such representations to be 
understood? Can they be direct predictions of the Mes- 
siah to come, the imagery being drawn from past or cur- 
rent events or personages, but with no idea of fulfillment 
by living men? Or must they be typical predictions, 
spoken with direct reference to characters or events 
belonging to the times of the writers ? The latter view is 
affirmed with too great confidence by certain leaders in 
higher criticism. They cannot believe that prophets were 
called to depict, even in figurative language, events in 
the remote future. Such predictions would have been 
useless to their contemporaries as well as psychologically 
inexplicable. 

But are not the principles of righteousness eternal? 
And do not the descriptions in these predictions em- 
phasize those principles and foretell their realization? 
Would such ideals be without influence, even if they were 
not fulfilled before the eyes of the people? Why do men 
now preach of the resurrection of the dead and of the 
life to come? Would it not have been useful to a David, 
a Jehoshaphat, or a Hezekiah, to have the reign of the 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 209 

ideal king set before him, even though he was conscious 
of not being himself that ideal king? And would it not 
have been useful in turn to the people, rendering some of 
them at least anxious to hasten the coming of the better 
day ? There are men far in advance of their age, having 
visions of the future. Why may not some of the Hebrew 
prophets have belonged to this class ? Paul says, that we 
as Christians live by hope ; could the most spiritual Is- 
raelites have lived in any other way ? 

Yet there can be no objection to the hypothesis of 
typical prophecy. And some of the passages cited below 
may be naturally explained in this way. Especially is 
it conceivable that a prpphet might be moved by the Spirit 
of God to encourage a youthful king to become an 
ideally righteous ruler, a true shepherd of his people. 
His language might have been predictive in form, but 
hortative and conditional in sense, as so many of the 
prophecies certainly were. And in that case he would 
rise to the highest standards both of government and of 
blessing. 

With these suggestions we turn to the passages which 
appear to foreshadow a divine human Messiah. 

a. The second Psalm represents the wicked as con- 
spiring against Jehovah and against his Anointed. This 
Christ, on the other hand, is set forth as begotten by 
Jehovah, invested by him as king in Zion with the gov- 
ernment of mankind, sure to subdue all his foes, entitled 
to the homage of all men, however high their rank, and 
a source of blessing to those who put their trust in him. 
The New Testament writers apply the words of this 
Psalm to Jesus Christ. See Acts 4:24, 27; 13:33; 
Heb. 1:5; 5:5. The internal peculiarities of it require 
such an application ; and the ancient Jews ascribe to it the 
same Messianic character. Perowne believes that it had 
primary reference to some Jewish monarch, as Solomon, 
perhaps; but this monarch was so conceived of and de- 


210 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


scribed as to be a type of Christ. Such a' view of its 
meaning does not detract from its value as evidence 
for the Godhead of Jesus. 

b. The forty-fifth Psalm celebrates the righteous- 
ness, power, glory, and happiness of a righteous King. 
His reign is to be perpetual. He is addressed as God; 
and his spouse, the object of his love, is urged to forget 
her own people and father in her regard for him. In 
favor of the Messianic interpretation of this Psalm may 
be urged the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews : 
see i : 8, 9 — which is of itself decisive, — and also the 
admission of the Psalm into the canon of the Old Tes- 
tament by the Jews; for, as a royal epithalamium , it 
must be pronounced extravagant and even impious. Only 
by interpreting it of Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 
5:23 sq.) can its right to a place in the canon be vin- 
dicated; and we know of no valid objection to this inter- 
pretation. Yet we do not assert that it could not have 
had respect, primarily, to some Jewish monarch, who 
was made by the Spirit of God a type of Christ to the 
sacred writer. 

c. The seventy-second Psalm represents the Messiah 
under the figure of a king’s son, who is also king, and 
whose reign is righteous, universal, peaceful, beneficent, 
and perpetual. Though the Psalm is not expressly 
quoted in the New Testament, the terms which it employs 
are so extravagant, if meant for an earthly monarch, and 
so exactly pertinent to the Messiah, according to other 
descriptions of his reign in the Old Testament, that every 
just principle of interpretation requires us to look upon 
it as relating to him, either typically or directly ; and, if 
so, the seventeenth verse teaches his divinity, — “ His 
name shall be forever; before the sun shall he continue 
his name ; and they shall bless the'mselves in him : all 
nations shall pronounce him blessed.” 

d. The one hundred and tenth Psalm represents the 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 


2 1 1 


Messiah as co-regent with Jehovah, — as an eternal 
priest-king, and as subduing all his foes. The Psalm is 
very often quoted in the New Testament, and always 
as descriptive of Christ; and its language is obviously 
inapplicable to a merely human being. One who is a 
crvvOpovos with Jehovah, and a regal priest forever, can 
hardly be less than God. This remarkable Psalm is most 
naturally understood as a simple and direct prediction 
of Christ; yet some prefer to regard it as describing 
typically his reign. 

e. The words of Isa. 9:5, 6, seem to pass entirely 
beyond the limits of any even poetic description of a 
simply human ruler, and must be interpreted of Christ. 
Consider them : “ For unto us a child is born, unto us 
a son is given; and the government shall be upon his 
shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Coun- 
sellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. 
And to the increase of his government and to peace there 
shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his 
kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it in judgment 
and in righteousness, from this time and to eternity.” 
This language ascribes to the Ruler in question a nature 
and office truly divine; and it may therefore be relied 
upon as teaching the deity of Christ. 1 

f. The words of Micah, 5 : 2-5, may be translated 
thus : “ And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too small to be 
among the thousands of Judah, from thee for me shall 
one come forth to be a ruler in Israel ; and his comings 
forth are of old, — the days of eternity,” etc. In this 

1 See “ Holy Bible, Polychrome Edition,” Isaiah, p. 145, 1 . 17, 
and Addenda, p. 210. The title “Father of Spoil” (p. 15, 1, 2) 
seems most infelicitous. But the rendering of the AV, the ever- 
lasting Father , or Father of Eternity (RVM), does not give a 
perfectly natural sense in this context.” 

The sense is perfectly natural if the Ruler described is the 
true Messiah, fortold by either direct or typical prophecy. 


212 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


remarkable prediction, the Messiah is represented as 
one — 

(a) Whose places of coming forth had been “ of old, 
— the days of eternity ” ; 

(b) Whose place of coming forth hereafter should 
be Bethlehem, — a small village in Judea; 

(c) Who should be born of a woman ; 

(d) Who should be a ruler in Israel; and 

(e) Who should rule as a shepherd in the strength 
and name of Jehovah. 

g. The words of Malachi 3:1, “ Behold, I am send- 
ing my messenger; and he shall prepare the way before 
my face: and the Lord whom ye are seeking shall sud- 
denly come to his temple, even the messenger of the 
covenant whom ye delight in,” etc. The speaker in 
this prophecy is Jehovah of hosts; the messenger sent 
before is his messenger, preparing his way ; and the Lord, 
the messenger of the covenant, in whom the people pro- 
fess to delight, and who is about to come to his temple, 
and sit as a refiner and purifier, must certainly be Je- 
hovah himself, but in the person of Christ. 

h. Daniel “ saw one like a son of man,” who “ came 
with the clouds of heaven,” even to the Ancient of 
days. “ And there was given him dominion and glory 
and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages 
should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting do- 
minion, which shall not pass away,” etc. : 7: 13, 14. This 
vision was manifestly typical of the kingdom and reign 
of Christ; and, if it represents without exaggeration 
the greatness and duration of that kingdom, he must be 
divine ; for the true God will not give his glory to another. 

2. In the language of Christ himself as recorded 
(1) In the Synoptical Gospels. For according to the 
plain meaning of his words and conduct, as here repre- 
sented, he claimed — 

a. To have superhuman knowledge, and particularly 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 213 

a knowledge of future events contingent on the free 
agency of man: Mark 11:2-6; Luke 19:30-34; Matt. 
26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31. 

b. To work great miracles, such as raising the dead, 
and feeding the multitudes with five loaves and two 
small fishes: Matt. 14:19-21; Mark 6:41-44; Matt. 
n:5; i5'30,3i; Luke, 8:41-56; 7:11-17. 

c. To empower others to work miracles, or to perform 
them himself at their word, though he was not with 
them : Matt. 10:8; Luke 9:1,2; Mark 6 : 7, 12, 13. 

d. To forgive sins as if with divine authority, im- 
plying certainly a knowledge of the heart, and a right to 
speak as God, or for God: Matt. 9:2-6; Mark 2:5-12; 
Luke 5 : 20-26. 

e. To rule over all things, — at least, in behalf of 
his people, — and to be present with them in all their 
places of worship : Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; Matt. 
28: 18; Matt. 18: 20. 

f. To know the Father directly and fully, as no one 
else can : Matt. 11:27; Luke 10 : 22. 

g. To be the Son of God, in a peculiar and eminent 
sense, implying sameness of Nature: Matt. 10:32, 33; 
11:27; 16: 17, 27. 

h. To be the final Judge : Matt. 7 : 21-23 J r 3 : 4 J -43 J 
19:28, 29; 25:31 sq. ; Mark 14:62; Luke 9:26; 22: 
69, 70. 

(2) In the Fourth Gospel The language of Christ 
in this gospel is often remarkable, and sometimes diffi- 
cult to understand ; but it evidently claims for him — 

a. To be from above, where he had been with the 
Father in glory, before the world was: 3: 13; 6: 38, 50, 
51, 62; 17: 5. 

b. To be, in a distinctive sense, the Son of God, 
knowing perfectly the way of the Father, and doing 
always what the Father did: 5 : I 7" 2 7> 3^, 431 6:40; 
10:37, 38. 


214 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


c. To be possessed of divine attributes and prerog- 
atives : 3: 13; 8:58; 14:9; 16: 15; 17: 10. 

d. To be the source of light and life to men : 12 : 35, 
36, 45, 46; 11:25; 14:6. 

(a) The language preserved in the fifth chapter is 
certainly very profound. By it Christ represents himself 
as knowing all that the Father performs, and as doing 
the same things which the Father does, in the same way 
in which the Father does them. Nay, more; by it, 
Christ affirms the impossibility of his doing anything 
apart from the Father. The two were inseparable in 
action ; and their activity was divine, having its source in 
the Father’s will. 

(b) With this language should be connected his dec- 
laration in the tenth chapter, showing that his followers 
could not be wrested from him, because his own power 
and action were those of the Father as well, — “I and my 
Father are one ” ; 1 and also his words to Philip and the 
other disciples, recorded in the fourteenth chapter, “ Fie 
that hath seen, me hath seen the Father; and how sayest 
thou, show us the Father? Believest thou not that I 
am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words 
which I speak to you, I speak not from myself, but the 
Father abiding in me himself doeth the works. Believe 
me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, but 
if not, on account of the works themselves believe.” It 
was difficult for even the eleven disciples to receive the 
truth as to the absolute unity of Christ and the Father, 
— a unity which made every act of Christ an act of the 
Father also. 

(c) It was clearly no part of Christ’s object to con- 
vince the Jews or his disciples of his own deity, apart 

1 Bengel, ad loc. “ Unum, non solum voluntatis consensu, sed 
imitate potentiae, adeoque naturae, nam omnipotentia est attribu- 

tum naturale: et sermo est de unitate Patris et Filii Per 

sumus refutatur Sabellius: per unum Arms.” 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 21 5 

from the Father. This would have been to convince 
them that there were two Gods for them to worship; 
but his object was to show them that he was one with 
the Father, in such a sense that all his working and teach- 
ing were the working and teaching of his Father. He 
knew that the expression, “ the Father,” would be under- 
stood by all to denote the true God; and therefore, in 
order to emphasize the fact that his works were truly 
divine, he ascribed them to the will of the Father, as 
their first cause ; but his own will was in absolute accord 
with his Father’s will. His own wisdom and action were 
a perfect manifestation of his Father’s will and action. 

(d) The language of Christ appears, no doubt, to 
give a certain precedence to the will of the Father; and 
it is not easy for us to define that precedence, or to deter- 
mine how much his discussion of the matter was in- 
fluenced by the state of mind which he saw in his 
hearers. One thing is certain : he acknowledged the 
deity, of the Father ; and, if he was to win their con- 
fidence at all, it must be by showing them, not that he 
was personally the Father, but that he recognized and 
honored the Father, and was one with him in word and 
deed. 

(e) But his sayings went beyond the idea of moral 
unity, such as might exist between a creature and the 
Creator, and suggested, on the one hand, the idea of a 
proper sonship, implying the same kind of nature in him 
and the Father; and on the other hand, the idea of 
mutual interpenetration or indwelling, which again 
deepens into that of identity at the very root of being 
and power, so that the activity of the one was also the 
activity of the other. And this last view agrees best 
with the unity of God, and with the passages in which 
Christ claims divine attributes, for example, John 3: 13; 
8:58; 16: 15. 

Says Olshausen (H.) : “In the Father, things are shut up 


2l6 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and hidden which manifest themselves in the Son ; therefore, 
all things which the Son has belong to the Father; but, in 
the Son, the properties of the father are revealed to men, in 
order that his name may be celebrated with praise. Life 
thus lying concealed with the Father in the beginning was 
manifested to men in the Son; so that when the Father is 
manifested, the Son is to be seen.” 1 

(3) In the book of Revelation. The words of this 
book, which may be regarded as the testimony of Christ 
himself, show — 

a. That he is the Son of God, in a sense which makes 
him truly divine : Rev. 2:18. 

b. That he is the first and the last and the living; or, 
in other words, eternal: Rev. 1 : 17, 18; 2:8; 22: 13. 

c. That he is the Word of God, the King of kings, 
and the Lord of lords : Rev. 19: 11-16. 

d. That he is worshipped by the heavenly hosts with 
supreme adoration: Rev. 5: 12-14. 

e. That he is associated with God as the source of 
life and light and joy in the heavenly world : Rev. 21:22, 
23; 22: 1, 3, 5. 

3. In the language of the writers of the New 
Testament concerning him, as found : — 

(1) In the Synoptical Gospels and the Epistles of 
lames, hide, and Peter. Without entering into any dis- 
cussion of the objects specially sought by the several 
writers of these books, it is perfectly evident that they 
looked upon Jesus Christ as being — 

a. One who knew the thoughts of men, — at least of 
all those whom he met or taught: Matt. 12:25; Mark 
2:8; 8: 17. 

b. One who was in a peculiar and eminent sense the 
Son of God : Matt. 16 : 16 ; Luke 1 : 32, 35 ; Matt. 3:17; 
17:5; Mark 9:7; 2 Peter 1:17; 1 Peter 1 : 3. 

c. One who was the Head and Lord of all Christians, 

1 “ Opuscula,” quoted by Fairbairn on 1 Tim. 6: 19. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 21 7 

worthy of perfect obedience and religious homage: James 
1:1; 2:1; Acts 10:36, 42; 1 Peter 1:3; 3:15, 22; 
2 Peter 1 : 1, 8, 1 1, 14 ; 2 : 1, 20 ; 3 : 18 ; Jude 1, 4, 17, 21, 
25. It is difficult to believe that they could have looked 
upon him thus, without holding him to be in nature 
divine. 

(2) In the writings of Paul , together with the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. Of the many statements in relation 
to the higher nature of Christ in this part of the New 
Testament, only a few can be mentioned. By some of 
them, Christ is represented, 

a. As being, along with the Father, the original source 
of grace, mercy, and peace to all believers : Rom. 
1:7; 8:9; 15:18, 19, 29; 16:20; 1 Cor. 1:3; 16:23; 
2 Cor. 1:2; 13:14; Gal. 1:3; 6:18; Eph. 1:2; 3 :i9 ; 
6 : 23, 24. 

b. As being the possessor and giver of the Holy Spirit : 
Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; 2 Cor. 3:17. 

c. As having supreme authority in the church, and 
over all things for the church : 1 Cor. 1:1; 5 : 4 5 7 : 12 ; 
15:24, 25; 2 Cor. 4:4, 5; 5:20; 10:8; Eph. 1:21, 22; 
2 : 20 sq. ; 5:5; Col. 1:18; Heb. 3:3, 6. 

d. As the One by whom and for whom all things 
have been made and are sustained : 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 
17; Heb. 1:2, 3, 10. 

e. As the final judge of mankind; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 
Cor. 5: 10; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; 2 Tim. 
4: 1, 8. 

f. As the true and perfect image of God: Col. 1: 15; 
Heb. 1:3; Col. 1 : 19. 

g. As the own and beloved Son of God : Rom. 1 : 3, 
4, 9; 8:3, 29, 32; 2 Cor. 1:19; 11:31; Gal. 2:20; 
4:4; Eph. 4: 13; Heb. 1:2, 5, 8; 4: 14; 5^; 6:6; 
7:3- 

h. As being in the form of God before incarnation, 
and as being God the Creator and Supreme Mediatorial 


2l8 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


King: Phil. 2:6; Rom. 9 : 5 ; Heb. 1:8, 10; Col. 2:9; 
cf. 1 Cor. 2 :8, 16; 10: 21, 22; 11 : 27; 2 Cor. 12: 8. 

i. As being addressed in prayer, and made the object 
of religious worship: 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 4: 18, 22. 

(a) Meyer assigns three reasons for believing that 
the last clause of Rom. 9 : 5 cannot refer to Christ, but 
must be a doxology to God the Father. Briefly, they 
are these : — 

a. Paul nowhere else denominates Christ, God; and there- 
fore he cannot be supposed to give him that name here. 
It is the name which he always applies to God the Father, 
who is naturaliter divine. But it must be said, in reponse to 
this, that Paul certainly teaches, that Christ once existed in 
the “ form of God,” Phil. 2 : 6 and that in him dwells “ all the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily.” 

Why then might he not call him God once, or a few 
times, though for distinction’s sake he generally gave 
this name to the Father? Besides, Meyer admits that 
John calls the higher nature of Christ, God, — once, at 
least; and he says, but once. The case of Thomas, how- 
ever, affords a second instance, and perhaps 1 John 5 : 20 
a third. 

b. That nowhere in the apostolic writings is there a 
doxology addressed to Christ. He admits, indeed, that the 
doxology in 2 Tim. 4: 18 refers to Christ; but he adds, that 
this is to be reckoned “ with the traces of its post-apostolic 
composition.” 

There is, however, no sufficient reason to doubt the 
Pauline authorship of the Second Epistle to Timothy. 
Nor is there any good reason for supposing that he would 
not use similar language here. 

c. That the words “ over all ” could not have been used 
of Christ as God. 

But surely if Christ could be denominated God, he 
could be described as “ God over all ” ; since no one 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 219 

would dream that God the Father was embraced in the 
meaning of the word “ all.” In another place, Paul as- 
serts that God “ gave him to be head over all things to 
the church.” 

(b) In favor of the ordinary interpretation, which 
refers the clause to Christ, may be urged its naturalness 
in the connection, the position of the adjective “ blessed ” 
after the word “ God,” and the presence of the Greek 
participle, translated “ is.” For this participle appears 
to be superfluous, if the clause is a doxology; while the 
adjective regularly precedes the noun in a doxology, but 
follows it, as here, in a description. (Compare Luke 
i : 68 ; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; Gen. 14:20; 2 Sam. 
22:47; Ps- 18:46; 66:20; 72:19; 119:12; Ezek. 
3:12; Dan. 3 : 28, 33 j 1 with Rom. 1 : 25 ; 2 Cor. 11 : 31.) 
The only apparent exception to this rule is in the Septua- 
gint version of Ps. 68 : 20, where the order of words in 
the Hebrew is regular. Meyer conjectures that the 
Hebrew word for “ blessed ” was repeated in the manu- 
script used by the LXX. 2 

(c) The best authorities require the word “ who ” to 
be substituted for the word “ God,” in Tim. 3 : 16. 
Whether “ the Lord ” should take the place of “ God,” 
as the original reading, in Paul’s address to the Ephesian 
elders, Acts 20:28, is still doubtful. Neither of these 
passages, therefore, can be associated with Rom. 9 : 5, by 
way of argument. The same may be said, though for 
other reasons, of Eph. 5 : 5, and Titus 2 : 13. It is by no 
means certain, that the word God ” refers, in either of 
the passages, to Christ ; yet a preponderance of evidence 

1 “ Prayer of the Three/’ in the LXX. 

2 See the International Critical Commentary on Romans 
by Sanday and Headlam, p. 233 ff., and Fairbairn (A. M.), “The 
Place of Christ in Modern Theology,” p. 312; also Jahrbiicher 
fur Deutsche Theologie, 1868, s. 462 ff., and Abbot (E.), Crit- 
ical Essays,” pp. 332-438. 


220 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


favors the view that it does, especially in the second. 
For, in respect to the first, it is to be borne in mind, that 
both “ God ” and “ Christ ” are used either with or 
without the article in the writings of Paul ; and in respect 
to the second, that the words “ coming,” “-appearing,” 
and “ revelation ” are used exclusively of Christ, — that 
is, when they refer to his second advent. But it is also 
to be considered, that it is “ the appearing of the glory 
of the great God,” etc., which is spoken of here; and 
therefore, Matt. 16:27 an d Mark 8:38 must be com- 
pared. 

Yet, even in the expression recorded by these two 
evangelists, prominence is given to Christ as the leading 
figure ; for he is to “ come in the glory of his Father, 
with his angels,” or “ with the holy angels ” ; while in 
other passages he is said to come “ in his own glory ” : 
Matt. 25:31; 1 Peter 4: 13; but if the words “great 
God,” in Titus 2:13, refer to the Father, the leading 
place at the second advent seems to be assigned to the 
Father, or to his glory. It seems probable, then, that 
Christ is here called “ the great God.” If not, his glory 
must be conceived of as blended with and of the same 
nature with that of the Father, though taking here a sec- 
ondary place. 

(3) In the writings of John. The beloved disciple 
appears to have been led by the Spirit of God, in view of 
errors which had begun to appear in the churches, and 
also, perhaps, in view of his own spiritual insight and 
predilection of heart, to set forth with uncommon fulness 
the doctrine of Christ’s theanthropic nature; yet he was 
led to do this, for the most part, by putting on record 
the teaching 'of Christ himself, which has been already 
examined. His own language, however, will be found to 
repay careful study, whether it be regarded as merely 
interpreting that of his Lord, or, also, as adding some- 
what to the teaching of the latter. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 


221 


For he teaches distinctly, 

a. The Existence of the Word, or higher nature of 
Christ, in the beginning; and he uses a word to signify 
that existence which appears to exclude all thoughts of 
origin: John I : I ; i John i : i, 2. Observe the use of 
V v i n speaking of the Word, while iyevero is used of 
John the Baptist and of the incarnation: John 1:6, 14; 
cf . 8 : 58. 

b. The Word, or higher nature of Christ, was with 
God in the beginning, and with him, as the Greek prep- 
osition suggests, in the way of rational affection and fel- 
lowship, — (see the same passages as above). 

c. By the Word, according to the will of the Father, 
all things were brought into existence : John 1:3. 

d. He was also the source of all life not strictly divine, 
and, through it, of all knowledge of God among men: 
John 1 : 4, 5 ; 1 John 1:2; (cf. John 1 : 9, 14, 16). 

e. The incarnate Word, while on earth, was in most 
intimate and loving communion with the Father whom 
he revealed, and whom he was able to reveal, because of 
that communion: John 1 : 18, 14. 

f. He knew, therefore, the mind of God, and at the 
same time the hearts of all the men with whom he had to 
do: John 2 *.24, 25; 5: 6; 6: 61, 64; 11:13,14. 

g. He was the only begotten Son of God, if not as to 
his higher nature in eternity, at least as to his divine- 
human being and personality in time: John 1: 14, 50; 
3:16-18,35,36; 1 John 1:3; 2:23; 3:23; 4:14, 15; 
5:5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20; and 

h. By virtue of his higher nature, he was truly God: 
John 1 : 1 ; 20: 28; 1 John 5 : 20 ; (cf. John 1 : 18). 

A few remarks may be added in explanation of certain 
passages referred to under h. 

(a) The substance of Meyer’s note on the last clause 
of John 1 : 1, is embraced in the following statements : 

First, that Oeos (God) must be the predicate of the sen- 


222 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tence; since, if it were not, this declaration would contradict 
the preceding one, by identifying God and the Word, who 
are there distinguished. Second , that the predicate precedes 
the subject, because the former is to be emphasized: for the 
progress of thought, “he was with God, and he was (not, 
perhaps, a person of inferior kind, but) of divine nature ” 
requires the emphasis to fall on the added fact. Third, the 
omission of the article before Oeos was necessary, for 6 Oeo s 
after the foregoing npos tov Oeov would have ascribed to the 
Word identity of person with the Father, which would have 
been inconsistent with the distinction of person just ex- 
pressed ; while the noun without the article adds to the asser- 
tion of distinction in person-, — an assertion of unity in es- 
sence and nature. Meyer quotes from Luther the pithy 
remark, that “the last proposition, — the Word ivas God , — 
is against Arius; the other, — the Word was with God , — 
against Sabellius.” 

(b) There is also force in Green’s remark, 

“ That a term cannot be fully effective, in virtue of its in- 
herent signification, when encumbered with the article ” (p. 
47). Thus in Heb. 1:1, “had the words been iv t(S v'up 
they would merely have called to mind the person already 
familiarly known under the title of the Son of God, without 
pointing attention to the inherent meaning of the title” (ib. 
cf. John 4:24). In John 1:1, last clause, “ 0 eos is the 
predicate, — that is, all that is involved in the notion of Oeos 
is predicated of the Word; namely, the proper nature and 
attributes of God.” 1 

It has been thought by some, that John borrowed the 
term “ Logos,” from Philo ; but this is scarcely prob- 
able : certainly he gave the term a meaning very different 
from that which it has in the writings of the Alexandrian 
philosopher. After examining the evidence on this point, 
De Pressense uses the following language : 

(c) “A judgment may now be formed of the assertion, so 
lightly thrown out, that Philo is the elder brother of Jesus, 

1 P- 37, Green's (T. S.) “Grammar of the New Testament.” 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 


223 


and the inspirer of John. For my part, I know no contra- 
dictions in the history of human thought more flagrant than 
those which exist beween the doctrines of these two. The 
first rests wholly upon the negation of moral evil; the start- 
ing-point of the second is the deep and bitter consciousness 
of sin. Alexandrine theosophy admits no redemption; the 
Gospel is nothing without this article. Philo proclaims the 
impossibility of Deity uniting himself directly with the 
human creature; while the incarnation is the grand theme of 
St. John. The one sees in the Word only the abstract gen- 
eralization of divine ideas ; the other adores in him ‘ the only 
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.’ Philo’s 
ultimatum is this : Deity cannot touch that which is material. 
The Fourth Gospel is summed up in this expression of its 
prologue: The Word became flesh. The antithesis is ab- 
solute; for that which is with St. John a capital truth would 
be to the Jew of Alexandria appalling blasphemy. If, then, 
Christianity must, at all costs, be linked with an antedecent 
system, this precursor must be sought elsewhere than in the 
synagogues of Egypt.” 1 

(d) John 20:28: “ My Lord and my God!” These 
words were addressed to Christ: hence, they pronounce 
him God, and teach his deity. But some reject the full 
sense of this expression, on the ground that Thomas was 
carried away by his feelings, and made use of extravagant 
language. We see no evidence of this ; yet we hesitate 
to take the words of Thomas at this time, as by them- 
selves proof of the deity of Christ; for the Holy Spirit 
had not yet been given, to guide the disciples into all 
the truth. But his words do not stand by themselves. 
Christ seems to approve them; and John, whose chief 
object in writing was to set forth the nature and claims 
of his Master, records them. 

“ The unbelief of Thomas,” says Leathes, “ rose to a height 
of daring obstinacy, which cannot frequently, if in any case, 
be equalled. It is plain, not only that he must have had 

1 De Pressense “Jesus Christ, Life, Times and Work,” p. 83. 


224 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

evidence of the very nature that our modern doubters ask 
for, and such as they cannot have, but also, that every single 
convert whom Thomas brought to Christ must have believed, 
upon less evidence than he himself had fixed as the limit on 
which alone he must believe.” 

And, on the other hand,, his recognition of the very 
deity of Christ was as remarkable and unqualified as had 
been his unbelief. 

“ His soul lifts itself, by a sudden mighty sweep, from the 
unbelief of hopeless melancholy to that highest word of 
belief” (Luthardt). “The exclamation of adoration by 
Thomas : ‘ My Lord and my God ! ’ in which the faith of the 
most incredulous of the disciples suddenly takes the most 
daring flight, and attains the height of its aim, such as is 
announced in the prologue, brings the narrative to a conclu- 
sion. It is thus that the end unites with the starting-point.” 1 

(e) i John 5:20: “ This is the true God, and eternal 
life.” This clause relates to Christ, for these reasons: 

a. The pronoun “ this ” is most naturally referred to 
Jesus Christ, the nearest antecedent. 

b. John is wont to represent Christ, and not the Father, 
as “ the Life,” or “ the Eternal Life.” See John 1:4; 
6: 48; 11:25; 14: 6; and 1 John 1:2; 5: 11, 12. 

c. The Son is declared in the former part of this verse 
to be essentially one with the true God, by the assertion, 
that we are in the true God by being in him. 

d. The use of the adjective a\r]0iv6<; before Oeos can 
be no objection to a reference of the clause to Christ; for, 
if Christ was God at all, he was God in reality, not in 
appearance merely. And, if he was entitled to the desig- 
nation “ true God,” there is no reason why it should not 
be given him here ; if it belonged to him as well as to the 
Father, this was a very suitable place in which to apply 
it to him. 


1 Godet. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 225 

e. But the use of the article makes a difficulty, though 
not, in our judgment, insuperable. For the object here 
is to emphasize the fact of the Christian’s intimate fellow- 
ship with God ; since being in Christ was being in God. 
The thought appears to be this : We are in the true God, 
by being, as we all know that we are, in his Son, Jesus 
Christ; for Jesus Christ, as well as the Father, and be- 
cause he is in essence and nature one with the Father, 
is the true God and eternal life. 

Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit 
can be said to comprehend all that is God, — the entire 
Godhead; but if they are one in nature and essence, one 
at the very root of being, it would seem that each of them 
must be in nature and in his appropriate action the true 
God to Christians, — the true God, that is, in distinction 
from all false gods. 

f. Reference is made to John i : 18, under h, because 
there is important manuscript authority for reading 
fiovo<yevrj < ? 0 eo? instead of 6 /iovo<yevr)<; vios. The reading 
is adopted by Tregelles, and ably defended by Dr. 
Hort. The four best uncials, nBC*L, and 33, a very im- 
portant cursive manuscript, sustain it. If this reading 
be correct, the words may be translated : “ God, only 
begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he declared 
him.” But the proposed reading, though so well sup- 
ported, cannot be relied upon in establishing a doctrine 
of Christ’s person. 

In conclusion, it may be remarked, that the undeniable 
and frequent application of the title icvpios with or with- 
out the article, to Christ by the apostles, proves that they 
believed him to be God; for, in the Septuagint, this 
word often represents the Hebrew name, Jehovah; and, 
in its religious use in the New Testament, is restricted 
to God and Christ. In several passages of the Epistles, 
it is difficult to say whether it means God the father, or 
Christ Jesus. It was certainly applied to Christ in a 


226 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


religious sense, and was probably used instead of the 
term “ God/’ for two reasons : first, because the Word 
was supposed to have been the Jehovah of the Old Testa- 
ment theophanies; and, second, because it was desirable 
to avoid designating the Father and the Son by the same 
word, unless in rare instances, and for special reasons. 

Any statements of Scripture which seem inconsistent 
with the doctrine that Christ, by virtue of his higher 
nature, was truly God, may be examined to better advan- 
tage after considering the evidence for his humanity, 
and the effect of the incarnation on the divine Word, 
than in this place. 

ii. Jesus Christ as Human 1 

Inasmuch as the humanity of Jesus Christ is admitted 
at the present day by all those who believe in him at all, 
the discussion of this topic may be made brief, without 
denying its great importance. For this reason any survey 
of Old Testament predictions concerning the Messiah is 
omitted. But no one can doubt for a moment after read- 
ing them that they represent the coming Messiah as 
human. Our study will therefore be limited to the New 
Testament. 

By this we are taught that Christ, in his lower nature, 
is truly human, in such passages as the following: 

i. Those in which he is denominated man: John 
8:40; Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; Phil. 2 : 7, 8 ; 1 Tim. 

1 Seeley (J. R.), “ Ecce Homo: Survey of the Life and Work 
of Jesus Christ”; Keim (T.), “History of Jesus of Nazareth”; 
Young (J.), “The Christ of History”; Vickers (J.), “The Real 
Jesus. A Review of His Life, Character and Death from a 
Jewish Standpoint”; Merrill (G. E.), “The Reasonable Christ”; 
Renan (E.), “The Life of Jesus”; Hughes (T.), “The Manli- 
ness of Christ”; Thorold (A. W.), “The Tenderness of Christ”; 
Ullmann '(C.), “The Sinlessness of Jesus; an Evidence for 
Christianity.” 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 227 

2:5; see also Luke 24:19; Acts 17:31; John 1:30, 
for passages calling Jesus Christ avrjp. In the first 
three of these passages, there is no reason for supposing 
avOp( 07 ro<i to be employed in a restricted or uncommon 
sense. In the fourth, Christ is said to have appeared 
in the likeness of men, and to have been found in form 
as a man, not because his human nature was only ap- 
parent, or at best defective, but because it was not all, 
or even the chief part of him. He was God as well as 
man. In the fifth he is denominated man, because he 
performed the work of mediation in human nature. 

2. Those in which he is called the Son of Man: Matt. 
8:20; 9:6; 26:64; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:22; John 
5:27; Acts 7 : 56. This title is used about eighty times 
by Christ, once by Stephen, and twice in the Apocalypse. 
It may be traced back to Dan. 7: 13, and characterizes 
Jesus as the true Messiah ; but, in the last analysis, it is 
probably a descriptive title, derived from the human 
nature of Christ: Matt. 1:1, 21, 25; 12:23; 21:9; 
Mark 12 : 55 ; Luke 20:41; Rom. 1 : 3 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 8. 

3. Those in which human properties and susceptibil- 
ities are ascribed to him: Matt. 4:1 sq. ; 26:37; Luke 
2:52; John ii: 33, 35; Heb. 2:175.4:15; cf. 5:2. 
Accordingly, Christ possessed the spiritual as well as 
bodily nature of man. Heb. 2: 17 pronounces him to 
have been, in all respects , like his brethren ; though a 
limitation is expressed in 4: 15. 1 

4. Those in zvhich his lower nature is called flesh, 

etc.: John 1:14; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7; Rom. 8:3; 

Heb. 2 : 14. The word “ flesh,” as used in the first four 
passages, is held by most interpreters to signify man or 
human nature. Precisely how much is implied by it in 
any passage must, however, be learned from the context 
(cf. Luke 3:6; John 17:2; Acts 2:17; Matt. 24:22; 

1 See Van Oosterzee on “ The Temptation of Jesus,” Am. and 
Presby. Rev. 169, P- 753 sq. 


228 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Rom. 3 : 20). The terms “ blood and flesh,” used in Heb. 
2 : 14, signify human nature, regarded, perhaps, as frail 
and mortal (cf. Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6: 12). Thus we find 
a name strictly applicable to but one factor of Christ’s 
lower nature, chosen to designate the whole of it. 

5. Those which describe his official work, and suggest 
the fitness, if not necessity, of his being man as well as 
God. For, as such, — 

(1) He could be truly under the law of God, and 
honor the same by perfect obedience. This evidently was 
looked upon as at least a part of his work, and indis- 
pensable to the rest : Rom. 5:19; Gal. 4 : 4. 

(2) He could suffer as an expiatory sacrifice; and by 
his own language it is clear that he must needs suffer 
in that way : Heb. 9 : 24-28 ; 1 Peter 2 : 24. 

(3) He could sympathize with men in weakness and 
trial. This also is treated by the writer of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, as if it were an important qualification for 
his work : Heb. 2:17; 5 : 7-10. 

(4) He could raise men into fellowship with God. 
This certainly was accomplished in the humanity of his 
own person, and the same he is to accomplish for all who 
trust in him. He is the first born among many brethren ; 
and this he could not be, were he not, by virtue of his 
true humanity their brother. 

hi. Jesus Christ Unipersonal 

The evidence which has been adduced in proof of the 
deity of Christ, on the one hand, and of his humanity, on 
the other, must be understood to refer to the two sides 
of his being, — to the two natures brought together in 
his person. Yet his being was not bipersonal, but uni- 
personal ; strictly speaking, he had but one conscious- 
ness, — but one will. 

1. In the early churches, an important controversy 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 229 

arose on the question, whether Christ had but a single 
will, or both a human and a divine will. The parties 
were denominated Monothelites and Diothelites. The 
controversy was apparently terminated in favor of the 
second party ; but it has been renewed from time to time 
down to the present day. 

2. In a. d. 680, the first Trullan (Constantinople) Council 
decided that “ one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-be- 
gotten, is to be recognized in two natures, unmixed, un- 
changed, inseparable, indivisible; the difference of natures 
by no means being destroyed by the unition, but rather the 
peculiarity of each nature being saved, and running together 
into one person and one hypostasis. We also preach, in like 
manner, according to the teaching of the holy fathers, that 
there were two natural wills or voluntary faculties in him, 
and two natural energies, inseparable, unchangeable, indivis- 
ible, and unmixed; and that the two natural wills were not 
opposed (God forbid!) as the impious heretics say, but his 
human will followed, not resisting or struggling against, but 
rather being subject to, his divine and omnipotent will.” 

3. The decision of this council was doubtless correct 
in pronouncing the two natures in Christ to be unmixed 
and inseparable, and in saying that they were united in 
one person and one hypostasis; but it was incorrect in 
ascribing two wills to the one person. Some have 
thought that Jesus had a kind of double-consciousness, 
and have explained his language as representing some- 
times the human side of his being and at others the 
divine side, though always speaking and acting as one 
being having but one will. 

4. Many of the creeds, formed soon after the Great 
Reformation, distinctly assert the unity of Christ as a 
person. “ Two natures in one and the same person ” 
may be called their motto on this subject; but it must 
not be inferred from this that they pronounced his con- 


230 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

sciousness or his will single. It was enough to say that 
he was truly one person. 

In proof of the personal unity of Christ, as explained 
in the first paragraph of this section, reference may be 
made, — 

(1) To his conception and birth. For the simple fact 
that the human and the divine were brought into union 
in this way points to a single person as the result. Had 
the connection been established at the time of Christ’s 
baptism, it would have been naturally regarded as 
similiar to _a possession. The Word might have been 
given to Jesus, as was the Spirit, without measure; but 
the union would not have been personal. 

(2) To the use of the pronoun “I,” in speaking of 
himself. If we may regard the gospels as fairly repre-- 
senting his custom in this respect, he was wont to speak 
with great uniformity in the first person singular; and 
the language of sincerity is the language of conscious- 
ness. Had the Saviour been conscious of. two personal 
centres, of two egos in himself, he would doubtless have 
revealed that consciousness by a frequent use of the pro- 
noun “ we.” The few cases in which the first person 
plural pronoun is used do not invalidate this : John 
3:11; 4:22; 9:4; 14:23. 

(3) To his resurrection and visible ascension into 
heaven. The Scriptures lead one to suppose, that the 
union of the human spirit with the Word was not sev- 
ered by his death on the cross; that he resumed by res- 
urrection the same body which was laid in Joseph’s 
tomb ; and that, as the God-man, he ascended into 
heaven, and sat down on the right hand of power. His 
resurrection is treated as a type and pledge of the saints’ 
resurrection; hence deity and humanity are united in 
him forever. All this points to a personal union and 
oneness. 

(4) To his habit of predicating of himself that which 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 23 1 

depended on his divine nature, and that zvhich de- 
pended on his human nature, — the one as freely as the 
other, — in precisely the same way as an ordinary man 
predicates of himself color and weight, hunger and 
thirst, as well as will and purpose, reason and affection, 
memory and hope : Matt. 12:25; 17:27; John 2:25; 
3:13; 21:17; 8:58; and Matt. 4:2; 21 : 18 sq. ; Luke 
2:52; Mark 13:32; Matt. 26:38; John 11:5, 33 > 35 ; 
Heb. 2:17. 

It may be remarked in this place that, in consequence 
of the personal unity of his being, whatever Christ did 
or suffered, by virtue of either of the natures united in 
him, received character from the other also. This re- 
mark will need to be borne in mind, when considering the 
value of his atoning death. 

iv. Each Factor Affected by its Union with the 
Other 1 

FIRST, AS TO HIS DIVINITY 

The subject to be discussed in this section is one of 
peculiar difficulty; and none but a cautious and reverent 
treatment of it will be likely to result in good. We pro- 
pose to notice some of the leading theories that have 
been promulgated by Christian teachers, before stating 
the view which is supposed to approach nearest the truth. 

1. Theory of Apollinaris. This was substantially as 
follows : In the person of Christ, the divine Word took 

1 Bruce (A. B.), “ The Humiliation of Christ”; Gore (Chas.), 
“ The Incarnation of the Son of God ” ; and “ The Consciousness 
of Our Lord,” in “Dissertations,” etc.; Reubelt (J. A.), “The 
Person of Christ; freely translated from the German of W. F. 
Gess”; Thomasius (G.), “ Christi Person und Werk”; Godet 
(F.), “ Commentary on John” ( Clark’s trans.), pp. 362 on 1 : 14, 
and pp. 396 ff. ; Fairbairn (A. M.), “The Place of Christ in 
Modern Theology,” pp. 354, 476; also the works of Shedd, Smith 
(H. B.), Dorner and others. 


232 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the place of a human mind or rational spirit, so that his 
person comprised a human body, an animal soul or life, 
and the infallible Word. Three things were thought to 
be gained by this theory: first, the personal unity of 
Christ; second, the moral immutability of Christ; and 
third, the suffering of God in the person of Christ. 

But it may be urged against this theory, first, that a 
mutilation of human nature in Christ cannot be proved 
necessary, in order to secure unity of person, or stability 
of moral character in him; and, secondly, that the ab- 
sence of a genuine human soul in Christ must have ren- 
dered him inaccessible to temptation, as well as unchange- 
able in purpose. 

The theory as broached by Apollinaris has no advo- 
cates at the present time. 

2. Theory of Nestorius. This was an attempt to assert 
the completeness of the human nature, as well as of the 
divine in Christ. According to Hagenbach, “ Nestorius 
supposed that the divine and the human natures of Christ 
ought to be distinctly separated, and admitted only a 
junction {crvvd(f>eta) of the one and the other, an indwell- 
ing (evoUr)<TL<;) of the Deity.” The union was regarded 
as ethical, rather than physical. 

Objections to this theory may be found in the evidence 
which has been already presented of the personal oneness 
of Christ; yet it must be freely admitted, that Nestorius 
did not mean to deny the Unity of Christ’s person. 

Theodore, a leader of this school, says, “ In respect to 
the union of divinity and humanity, we recognize one 
person, just as it is said of husband and wife that they 
are one ” ; and such a statement condemns the theory 
which would lead one to make it. 

3. Theory of Cyril. This was a reaction against that 
of Nestorius; and it laid special emphasis on the unity 
of Christ. The oneness of the natures was said to be 
physical. All the bodily sufferings of man were felt by 


<*»» 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 233 

the incarnate Word. But the higher nature of Christ re- 
mained omniscient ; though, for the sake of acting in 
congruity with its condition, ignorance of some things 
was professed. The tendency of this view was to find 
in Christ a resultant of forces, human and divine ; though 
the divine were so superior as to be in constant danger of 
absorbing the human. Says Dorner, “ We may call the 
view of Cyril (according to which the human is changed 
into the divine) the magical aspect of the union; and 
that of Nestorius (according to which the two natures 
are only joined together) the mechanical” There ap- 
pears to be no tendency to revive the doctrine of Cyril. 

4. Theory of Leo. This was expressed in the confes- 
sion adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in a. d. 451. 
It confesses Jesus Christ to be “ perfect in deity, perfect 
in humanity, truly God and truly man; of reasonable 
soul and body ; of the same substance with the Father as 
to his divinity; of the same substance with us as to his 
humanity; in all things like to us, except sin; one and 
the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested 
in two natures, without confusion, without conversion, 
indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being 
by no means abolished by the union, but rather the prop- 
erty of each, preserved and combined into one person 
and one hypostasis; not one severed and divided into 
two persons, but one and the same Son and Only- 
begotten, namely, God Logos, Lord Jesus Christ.” 

This statement represents the cardinal facts truly ; but 
it does not attempt to show in what the humiliation of the 
Logos consisted. 

5. Theory of Gess. This theory, which has found sev- 
eral advocates in modern times, asserts that the eternal 
Word became human in his personality and experience. 
To be more specific, it is said, that the Logos became 
totally unconscious in the womb of Mary ; that he awoke 
to consciousness as does a newly-born human soul ; that 


234 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

his knowledge was obtained and increased in the same 
manner substantially as that of other men; that, during 
his whole earthly life, his consciousness, knowledge, and 
power were strictly finite; that his miracles were not 
wrought by his own might, but by the power of the 
Father and the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, — in a word, 
that he became human, having all the divine attributes, 
but in a latent condition, their natural action being sus- 
pended, the divine consciousness kept in perfect abeyance, 
and the Logos exercising his energies within the limits 
appropriate to mere humanity. 

This theory revives that of Apollinaris, by teaching 
that Christ had no rational soul in addition to the incar- 
nate Word, but differs from it by teaching that the in- 
carnate Word in his actual experience was a human soul. 
In essence, the Word remained divine; but, in attributes 
he became human. 

(i) In support of this theory, reference is made, 

a. To the words of John 1:14; and of Paul, Phil. 
2 : 6, which are said to teach the doctrine of this theory 
expressly. For, by emphasizing the words, became flesh 
(crapf iyevero), and emptied himself (kavrov i/cevcoaev), 
the thought comes out distinctly, that in the act of be- 
coming man, the Word depotentiated himself, or changed 
the properties of his divine nature into those of human 
nature. 

Yet little stress is to be laid on the literal sense of 
these two expressions. For the verb employed by John 
is used by Paul (Gal. 4:4) in the sense “ was begotten ” 
or “ was born.” And the language of John may signify 
no more than that of Paul. This is rendered more cer- 
tain by the expression used by John in his First Epistle, 
4:2; for, “ to come in flesh ” is scarcely equivalent to 
coming as flesh. Still further, the words of the next 
clause, “ and dwelt (or tented , eaicrjVMo-ev) among us,” 
may be supposed to imply a reference to his human 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 235 

nature, as the tent in which the Word dwelt on earth. 
On the whole, it does not appear to be safe to infer, from 
John 1 : 14, that the Word became flesh by changing his 
own attributes into those of flesh, even if essence and 
attributes are not inseparable, in such a sense that the 
essence would be no longer the same if the properties 
were changed. 

Equally uncertain is the meaning assigned to “ emptied 
himself,” in Phil. 2 : 7. For if the act referred to be 
interpreted by the clauses that follow, it consisted in 
“ assuming the form of a servant,” in “ coming to be 
(or being born) in likeness of men”; and the word 
“ form ” points rather to condition and manifestation 
than to attributes. If it be urged that the words, 
“ emptied himself,” naturally signify that, by an act of 
his own, he parted with the very forces of his being, — 
the inner powers of his deity, — it must be considered, 
on the other hand, that change of “ form” naturally signi- 
fies the opposite of this. Says Dr. Hackett, “ ‘ Taking 
the form of a servant/ states in what the act expressed 
by i/cevcoae consisted ; namely, in exchanging the form 
(or glory) in which he existed as God for that in which 
he existed as a servant. The difference between 
form, manifestation, and soul or ovaia, , nature, 

substance, becomes important here; for we can under- 
stand how Christ, as the preexistent Logos, could ex- 
change one mode or manifestation of existence for 
another, but not how he could divest himself of his orig- 
inal divine nature.” 

b. To the language used in Acts 1:2; John 14: 10; 
cf. Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:1; John 3 : 34. These passages 
teach, it is said, that the knowledge of Christ was limited, 
inasmuch as it could receive addition from the Father 
by the Holy Spirit. But, if it is borne in mind that the 
human nature of Christ was sanctified at conception by 
the personal agency of the Holy Spirit, it is natural to 


236 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

suppose the symbolical descent of the Spirit upon him 
at his baptism, in the form of a dove, significant of a 
larger, miraculous working of that Spirit in his human 
soul. 

It has also been thought by some, that all the mirac- 
ulous action of the Spirit during the ministry of Jesus 
was confined to his own person, or communicated to 
others from his person. See John 7:39. As it is the 
special work of the Spirit to prepare the faculties of the 
human soul to discern spiritual truth, to receive revela- 
tions from Gpd, and to impart them to men, it is reason- 
able to conclude that he rendered a like service to the 
human soul of Christ, enabling it to receive all needed 
truth from his higher nature, — the Word. 

c. To the language used in John 5 : 19, 20, 36, and 
Acts 2 : 22 ; 10 : 38, which teach, it is said, that Christ’s 
power was limited in the same way, and to the same ex- 
tent, as his knowledge. In reply to this, we remark, that 
his miracles of power appear to have been wrought by 
Jesus himself, but not apart from the Father and the 
Spirit, even as the world was made by the Logos at first, 
but not apart from the Father and Spirit. It was doubt- 
less Christ’s aim, in the passages cited from John, to 
emphasize the inseparable unity of the Father and him- 
self, and the utter absurdity of the Jewish charge, that he 
was speaking and acting without God, or apart from 
God. This he denies the possibility of. 

(2) A general objection to this view is, that it supposes 
no proper union of deity and humanity in the person of 
Christ. He was God, and he was man : God, by virtue 
of the deity of his original nature ; man, by virtue of the 
human properties and limitations which that nature took 
for a time in lieu of the divine. Hence, it is scarcely 
proper to say, that he was God and man, or God plus 
man; for, as a whole, he was God in a certain sense; 
and, as a whole, he was man in another sense: but he 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 237 

was neither God nor man, in the full meaning of these 
words. Another objection to this view is that it affirms 
a change in the Logos, which seems to be incompatible 
with his deity, and, if really so, is incredible. It is true, 
that great caution should be used in reasoning about the 
nature of God ; but we are unable to deny all force to 
this objection. 

6. Theory of Thomasius. This differs from the fore- 
going, by teaching that, along with the depotentiated 
Word, Christ had a human soul, like that of any other 
man, sin excepted. Thus his human nature was com- 
plete ; and the two souls, mysteriously united in one per- 
son, advanced pari passu in knowledge and grace until 
the hour of his death on the cross. Nearly the same 
arguments are adduced in support of this theory and of 
the preceding ; and nearly the same replies must be made 
to them. 

But to these may be added several positive objections 
to them both. And a. They appear to be inconsistent 
with the claims of Christ while on earth; for example, 
with his claim of knowledge : Matt. 11:27; John 5:20; 
of power: Matt. 11:27; John 5 :1 9> 21 5 of authority: 
Matt. 9:26; and of timeless being: John 8: 58. 

b. They appear to be inconsistent with any resumption 
of divine attributes by Christ, until his mediatorial work 
is accomplished; for a resumption of divine attributes 
must be equivalent to laying aside human attributes, 
which will not take place before “ the end/’ nor even 
then: John 5:22, 23, 27; Heb. 2:18; 4:15; Rev. 
22:1. 

c. They appear to be inconsistent with any proper idea 
of the relation between essence and attributes. The doc- 
trine of transubstantiation is no more incredible than this 
view of the humiliation of Christ; for the doctrine of 
transubstantiation simply asserts, • that the essence is 
changed from the natural to the divine, while the attri- 


238 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


butes or accidents remain unchanged. Very suitably 
may such theories be characterized as “ magical.” It 
is better to have no theory than to accept one of these. 

7. Theory of Dorner. This distinguished theologian 
holds that the incarnation was gradually accomplished. 
The divine Word at first communicated himself partially 
to the human nature of Jesus, and then in ever larger 
measure as that nature became able to receive him. 

At the outset, the will of the Logos was directed to 
the production of a theanthropic or holy nature, which 
should be called “ Son of God ” ; and thenceforth, united 
with that nature, he knows and wills every act of it as 
his own. 

The eternal Word did not put himself, by the act of 
incarnation, into a kind of swoon, from which he at last 
awoke to a simply finite and human consciousness ; but 
he entered and made his own the life of human nature in 
Christ, enlarging the sphere of conscious fellowship and 
oneness pari passu with the development of that human 
nature. 1 

These are some of the theories which have been pro- 
posed concerning the incarnation and its effect upon the 
higher nature of Christ. They are none of them alto- 
gether satisfactory ; though we are inclined to believe 
that the view of Dorner is less objectionable than any of 
the others, unless it be that of Leo. 

It may be hazardous to say more ; but we are partially 
satisfied with the following statement : — ; 

8. The divine Word so entered into personal union, 
with human nature in Jesus Christ , that his theanthropic 
consciousness and experience embraced the action of both 
divine and human powers and susceptibilities. 

1 Compare “ System of Christian Doctrine,” Eng. transl. III., 
196: “The whole fulness and majesty of the Logos could only 
gradually be assumed, and consequently the Divine-human unity 
itself was conceived to be still in increase.” 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 239. 

If his lower nature was truly human, it was finite, and 
therefore capable of growth ; and the limits of his human 
intelligence must have been present to the consciousness 
of Jesus, as well as the perfection of his divine intel- 
ligence. What then may have been the law of his action 
as mediator between God and man? 

Possibly this : That both his divine and his human 
faculties were concerned in whatever he did as the God- 
man. If so, the action of his higher nature was confined 
within the limits in which the action of the lower could 
take part. That, in particular, the human intelligence 
of Christ apprehended all that he taught ; for he taught as 
a theanthropic being. That the human faculties of 
Jesus shared the knowledge of the divine, as to all that 
his Messianic work required at any stage of its earthly 
progress. 

In support of this view may be mentioned the follow- 
ing considerations : — 

( 1 ) It agrees with the prima facie import of many pas- 
sages of the New Testament: for example, Matt. 11:27; 
John 5:17, 19, 20, 21, 26; 8:58; 10:28-30; 14:9. 
The first passage is thus translated by Alford : “ All 
things are delivered unto me by my Father; and none 
certainly knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither doth 
any fully know the Father but the Son, and he to whom- 
soever the Son is minded to reveal him.” The verb 
iTriyivcoo-fcco is, properly translated, to know fully ; for 
in the New Testament the simple verb is made inten- 
sive by the preposition. The second reads : “ My Father 
worketh until now, and I work,” referring to super- 
natural action, like the cure of the impotent man. The 
third declared the action of the Father and the Son in- 
separable: “ The Son can do nothing of himself, save 
what he seeth the Father doing; for what things soever 
the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son in like man- 
ner.” The fourth teaches that “ the Father showeth the 


. 240 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Son all things that himself doeth ” ; and the fifth , that 
the Son gives life as truly as the Father ; “ for like as 
the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, 
even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” The sixth 
affirms that, “ as the Father hath life in himself, so did 
he give to the Son also to have life in himself.” Says 
Prof. Gess, an able advocate of theory No. 5, described 
above, “ If this word of Jesus refers to his earthly life 
no less than to that which preceded and followed it, the 
Son did possess the life of God while on earth; and 
all that we have said about the self-exinanition of the 
Logos in becoming flesh would be overthrown.” It 
seems to us perfectly plain that this word of Jesus does 
refer to his earthly life, and overthrows the doctrine 
taught by Gess. The next passage, as we have seen, 
declares the conscious life of Christ to be, in some way, 
unoriginated and timeless. It is a remarkable declara- 
tion, “ Before 1 ' Abraham was I am ” ; and it seems in- 
compatible with the theory of a merely human conscious- 
ness in Christ. There was a divine side to his conscious- 
ness, flashing its glorious light on certain truths for the 
human side, that the God-man might testify directly of 
his higher life. Equally conclusive are the other texts 
quoted above. 

(2) It ascribes to Christ a truly theanthropic expe- 
rience. It supposes that in him the divine Word, as such, 
and with all his powers unabridged, entered into con- 
scious, personal union with human nature, — Totus in 
suis, totus in nostris. And in no other imaginable way 
could a being truly divine have personal experience of 
human weakness and woe. To drop the divine conscious- 
ness and become human, and then to drop the human and 
become again divine, gives no such experience or fellow- 
ship; and this circumstance alone raises the theory be- 
fore us to an immeasurable height above many of the 
preceding. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 241 

(3) It offers itself to the mind more readily than any 
other view. This might be proved, we think, by an ap- 
peal to the history of Christendom ; but we are willing to 
have every one test it, by recalling the action of his own 
mind on the subject. 

To this last theory we look as the best expression yet 
given to the doctrine of the nature of the union of deity 
and humanity in the person of Christ. But we do not 
claim to understand fully the miracle of the incarnation, 
nor do we suppose that the view accepted by us, as ap- 
proximately correct, can be applied with perfect ease to 
all the sayings of Christ and his Apostles. It denies 
any mutilation of the human, any latency or paralysis of 
the divine in Jesus Christ. This is a great excellence; 
and it affirms the unity of his person, which is equally 
important. Both the denial and the affirmation seem to 
us scriptural ; though single expressions may be cited 
which seem at first inconsistent with one of them. 

SECOND, AS TO HIS HUMANITY 

This topic may be treated with more brevity than the 
preceding; yet it cannot be passed by in silence. For the 
marvellous perfection of Christ’s character and develop- 
ment as man was due beyond question in some measure 
to the personal union of his human nature with the divine 
Word, and everything which relates to the genuineness 
of his humanity is singularly interesting to a large class 
of thoughtful men at the present time. 

It must, indeed, be admitted that religious specula- 
tion has tended, of late, to an almost exclusive considera- 
tion and assertion of the true humanity of Christ; but 
this is a reason for, rather than against, giving to it all 
the prominence which it deserves; and a reason for, 
rather than against, attempting to show how that 
humanity was affected by the incarnation. 


242 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


The following statements are suggested by the lan- 
guage of the sacred writers : — 

i. That the human nature of Jesus , though derived 
from Mary , was purified from all moral evil , or bias to 
moral evil , by the Holy Spirit , at the moment of its union 
with the divine Word. This appears to be no more than 
a just inference, from the prediction of the angel Gabriel 
to Mary, as recorded by Luke 1:35: “ The Holy Spirit 
will come upon thee, and the power of the Most High 
will overshadow thee; wherefore the holy one that is to 
be born will be called the Son of God ” (Noyes). 

But the immaculate conception of Christ does not, in 
the least, presuppose the immaculate conception of his 
mother. For, if the nature of Jesus could not be spot- 
less without having a spotless mother, neither could the 
nature of Mary be spotless without having a spotless 
mother ; and so on, back to Adam. But if it was possible 
for his mother to have been conceived and born from 
sinful parents, without any taint of moral evil, then it was 
certainly possible for Jesus to be conceived and born of 
Mary, though she was herself sinful, without any taint 
of moral evil ; and, of his immaculate conception the 
words of Gabriel are sufficient proof, especially when 
taken in connection with the story of his life, and with 
the ample testimony to his freedom from all personal 
sin : while, of his mother’s immaculate conception, the 
Scriptures afford no proof whatsoever. 

Again, the doctrine of Edward Irving, that the Logos 
entered into personal union with human nature in its 
fallen state, having a bias to moral evil, is also to. be 
rejected as unscriptural. Yet three arguments are al- 
leged in support of it; namely, 

( 1 ) That it is directly taught by Paul, in Rom. 8:3: 
“ God having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful 
flesh.” If Paul’s language were “ in sinful flesh,” the 
Irvingite theory would be plainly taught: but that is 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 243 

not his language ; and the words which he does use may 
very well signify, that “ the flesh of Christ was like 
flesh of sin, inasmuch as it was flesh, but unlike, inas- 
much as it was not affected with sin.” 

Says De Wette, “ a-api a/xaprtas is flesh (or human na- 
ture) possessed with sin; the apostle could not then have 
said in flesh of sin, without making Christ partaker of sin; 
nor could he have said merely in flesh; for then the bond 
between the manhood of Jesus and sin would have been want- 
ing. He says, then, in likeness of flesh of sin; meaning 
that he had a nature like sinful human nature, but had not 
himself a sinful nature.” 

(2) That it is clearly implied in the susceptibility of 
Christ to temptation, and especially in his knowing by 
experience how to succor those who are tempted, — the 
latter being sinners. The argument is plausible, but not 
conclusive; for, if it be necessary to have a depraved 
nature, in order to feel the force of temptation, Adam 
and the angels must have been created with depraved 
natures. And, if it be necessary to have been in the 
moral condition of sinners who are tempted, in order to 
know how to succor them, Christ must have had not 
only a sinful nature, but also a habit of sinning, to 
qualify him for his work ; but this no one will assert. 

(3) That it is implied in a correct view of the atone- 
ment. For human nature in its fallen state was summed 
up in the humanity of Christ, and in that humanity paid 
the just penalty for all its sin. But the idea that the 
human nature of Christ was the whole of human nature, 
in any other sense than that in which human nature is 
entire in any other man, is a mere fiction of the imagina- 
tion. If he bore the penalty of sin at all, it was not the 
penalty of his own personal sin, or sinfulness, but the 
penalty due to others for their sins. Bearing the 
penalty of his own sinfulness would not help them, 
unless it were to bear, themselves, the penalty of their 


244 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sinfulness. This is self-evident. If there was anything 
vicarious in his suffering, it presupposes his holiness 
rather than his sinfulness. 

2. That the human nature of Jesus was supported by 
the special presence of the Holy Spirit during his public 
ministry . This is proved by several expressions of the 
sacred record : Matt. 3 : 16 ; 4 : 1 ; Luke 4:1; John 3:34; 
Acts 1 : 2. Just what the relation of the Spirit’s work 
in the soul of Christ may have been to that of his higher 
nature is. unrevealed ; but from the office of the Spirit 
in the economy of salvation, — renewing, sanctifying, 
and preparing men for the reception of truth, — it may 
be inferred, with some probability, that the human nature 
of Christ was moved by the Spirit to desire and seek the 
very things which the incarnate Word desired and 
sought, thus contributing to the perfect unity of aim and 
spirit that distinguished Christ from all other men. 

3. That the human nature of Jesus was helped forward 
in knozvledge and virtue , by light which his divine nature 
imparted. This may be inferred from the circumstance 
that it was the Word, the Revealer of truth, with whom 
this human nature was in personal union. The same 
consciousness which felt the needs and trials of his 
finite soul was illuminated by divine light from the 
Word. Most surely then would the Logos impart to the 
human faculties all the light which they needed at any 
time for intelligent participation in the work to be done, 
or the suffering to be borne. This may be nearly what 
Dorner means by a gradual incarnation, or communica- 
tion of himself to his humanity. 

In view of what has now been said of the effect of 
the incarnation on the divine and human natures of 
Christ, respectively, such passages as Mark 13:32; Luke 
2 : 52, and several others, do not appear to be altogether 
inexplicable. In his theanthropic work, both natures in 
the person of Christ were to participate ; and therefore 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 245 

the possibilities of appropriation by the lower nature 
furnished a moral limit to the action of the higher. That 
he should reveal his glorious perfections, on a scale 
determined by the ability of a holy human soul to ap- 
preciate his work, was, therefore, embraced in the 
incarnation of the divine Word. 

Reason for the Incarnation 

It is held by a considerable number of modern theo- 
logians ( e . g., Martensen, Liebner, Dorner), that the 
Logos would have become incarnate if mankind had 
never sinned. The circumstances of his becoming man 
would have been different, but the incarnation itself 
would have taken place none the less. In support of this 
opinion, appeal is made, — 

1. To the following passages of Scripture: Col. 1:15- 
17; Eph. 1:10, 22, 23; 4:15, 16; Col. 1:18-20; for 
these passages are supposed to teach that Jesus Christ, 
the God-man, was intended in the eternal plan of God 
to be the centre and goal and head of all created things, 
whether angels or men, and it is considered unreason- 
able to believe that the fulfillment of this plan was made 
contingent on the fall of Adam. 

But we do not see that it is unreasonable to believe this, 
if the fall of man was foreknown and embraced in that 
plan, and we are unable to see how the plan could have 
been perfect without embracing in it this great moral 
event and all that was fit to be done in view of this 
event. Besides, the language of Scripture distinctly 
teaches that this event was, in its consequences, em- 
braced in that plan : Acts 2 : 23. 

2. To the very nature of the case; since it is wellnigh 
self-evident that God would have done as much for an 
obedient race as he has done for one that is sinful. 

But we do not accept this as a self-evident truth. A 


246 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

parent may do more for a sick child than for one that 
is well. And it is admitted that the death of Christ would 
not have been necessary, if men had never sinned. More- 
over, it is possible that the incarnation would have been 
of no real advantage to an unfallen race, and the only 
reason why it is suitable and so admirable to all rational 
beings is found in redemption. The greater the evil of sin, 
the more adequate a reason may it have been for so ex- 
traordinary and condescending an act as the incarnation. 

In opposition to this view appeal is made, 

(1) To the following passages of Scripture: Matt. 
20:28; John 3:16, 17; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4, 5; Heb. 
2: 14-16; 1 Tim. 1 : 15; 1 John 3:8. These verses seem 
to prove that the principal if not the only reason for the 
incarnation was the lost condition of mankind. But they 
do not disprove the presence of any other reason in the 
mind of God. Indeed, they are perfectly consistent with 
the view that human redemption was intended to have 
a great and beneficent influence on other rational beings. 
And for evidence that this was the case reference may 
be made, — 

(2) To such passages of Scripture as these: Col. 
1 : 18-20 ; Eph. 1 : 10, 21-23 ; 3:10; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Pet. 
1:12, which clearly teach that the actual manifestation 
of God in Christ, and its blessed results in the salvation 
of men, was meant to reveal, with extraordinary distinct- 
ness, the divine wisdom and goodness. But this surely 
does not prove that the incarnation, apart from redemp- 
tion, would have been wise or necessary. It may only 
show that the permission of moral evil is not wholly 
incompatible with divine wisdom. The evil being pres- 
ent, its removal at any cost may have manifested the 
love of God; but if the evil had not been present, who 
can say that such humiliation on the part of the Divine 
Logos would have commended itself to reason or con- 
science? Non liquet. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 247 

Nor would it be certain that we could give a different 
answer, if we should hold with Dr. G. W. Samson that 
the Logos became an angel before he became a man. For 
there are sinning angels as well as sinning men, and his 
taking to himself the nature of angels might have been 
to redeem them from their lost estate. But the grounds 
for Dr. Samson’s belief seem to be shadowy, or if not 
shadowy, conjectural ; though it is fair to say that he does 
not seem to see any necessity for a full and careful 
statement of them. 


CHAPTER II 


ii. Work of Jesus Christ 


HE work of Jesus Christ for human salvation may 



± be described comprehensively as Mediatorial. He 
is the one Mediator (/-teo-m??) between God and men : i 
Tim. 2: 5, and the object of his mediation is the restora- 
tion of fellowship between God and men. To accomplish 
this, three kinds of service were seen to be wise and 
necessary, commonly described as prophetic , priestly , 
and kingly. Chronologically, this is a proper arrange- 
ment of the three kinds of service, but logically they 
should be placed as follows, sacrificial , prophetic , kingly ; 
the word “ sacrificial ” being substituted for the word 
“ priestly,” because Christ was sacrifice as well as priest. 
In other words, his work was fundamentally a work of 
self-sacrifice; by that he revealed the mind of God, and 
by that his kingly administration is carried forward. 
He reigns by the power of truth, and especially by the 
message of the cross. We therefore begin with his self- 
sacrifice. 


Preliminary Remarks 


The word atonement primarily signifies reconcilia- 
tion : Rom. 5:11 (tcaraWayrj), but it is technically used 
to signify the chief condition, ground, or cause of recon- 
ciliation, viz., Christ’s suffering for the salvation of men. 
It is not, therefore, quite satisfactory. But neither is the 
word propitiation ( IXaafio ? or iXaarrjpiov), since it sug- 
gests the relation of Christ’s death to the mind and atti- 
tude of God only. The same objection is applicable to the 
word satisfaction. The word redemption is no better, 
248 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 249 

for, like atonement, it points to a result of Christ’s work 
in the forgiveness of sins or justification . What we wish 
to ascertain, if possible, is the reason or purpose of the 
humiliation and death of Jesus Christ, that is, of his self- 
sacrifice. 

A few definitions will open the way for our summary 
of Scripture teaching. They are believed to be correct, 
but are subject to revision. 

1. Moral good consists of right voluntary action or 
feeling. 

Moral good is ordinarily, but not necessarily or al- 
ways, a source of natural good. It may be a source of 
natural evil, that is, if natural evil is ever a means of 
moral good. Sympathy with those who are suffering 
because of their sins may be morally right, if it be 
sympathy with them as suffering, not as sinning; for 
self-sacrifice is often a duty. 

2. Natural good consists of happiness , satisfaction. 

God esteems voluntary righteousness so highly that 

he made men capable of it, even at the risk of their 
choosing to do wrong, and although their choice to do 
this was foreseen. In like manner God esteems social 
and brotherly life so highly, that he made men capable 
of it, though at the risk of suffering on the part of the 
good from their connection with the bad, and even 
though he foresaw that none of the race could be truly 
good, without patiently bearing much natural evil with 
the bad. 

Thus there is some analogy between the suffering of 
Christ and the disgrace and pain which is borne by good 
men on account of the bad, and often for their benefit. 
“ Sympathy is said to be the only pain which God can 
bear,” and certainly it is not wrong for men to bear it. 
Indeed, they are required to bear it. And sympathy or 
suffering with others is closely allied to suffering instead 
of others. The same motive may influence one to suffer 


250 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

in place of another as to suffer with another. If one is 
right, so is the other. 

3. Moral evil consists of wrong voluntary action or 
feeling. 

Moral evil or sin is ordinarily a source of natural 
evil ; indeed, of natural evil answering in degree to the 
greatness of the sin. Natural evil or suffering may, 
therefore, as a feature of divine government, be per- 
fectly right. It may be favorable to righteousness, be- 
cause preventive or repressive of sin. In itself it has no 
moral quality, but it may have an important relation to 
right or wrofig in moral beings, and may, therefore, be 
demanded by righteousness. 

4. Natural evil consists of pain, or loss of happiness. 

Other things being equal, the tendency of natural 

evil to prevent or repress moral evil will depend on the 
character and certainty of the natural evil. If beings, 
at once moral and social, could be made to see that nat- 
ural evil is a just and inevitable consequence — either 
to themselves or to their associates — of moral evil or 
sin, it would be most effective in supporting righteous- 
ness ; it would impress them most deeply with God's un- 
alterable abhorrence of sinful conduct. But the less the 
penal consequence, and the more easily it can be set aside, 
the less will be its value in moral government, — it being 
always understood that the sacredness and value of moral 
good is not overestimated in comparison with natural 
good, and that moral evil is not exaggerated in com- 
parison with natural evil. 

Two hypotheses are therefore possible. 

( 1 ) That moral evil is treated or may be treated in the 
same way and with as much favor as moral good. For 
God is love or good will, pure and simple, and love has no 
regard to the past conduct of its object, but shows as 
great or even greater favor to the bad than to the good. 
Hence it makes no use of natural evil in condemning sin 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 25 1 

already committed, but only in preventing future sin. 
Punishment is strictly reformatory, or reformatory and 
preventive. It has no retributive function. God is not 
concerned about the past; he is only interested in the 
future. 

But is it true that past sins are ever wholly past? Do 
they not continue in their influence on others, unless 
that influence is counterbalanced by something in God’s 
government? Is not God’s moral government eternal? 
Must not moral evil be discountenanced forever by nat- 
ural evil? Must not sinners be punished rather than 
petted? Does not conscience insist on this as right and 
necessary? Yet the great fact of partnership in natural 
evil must not be overlooked, nor the possibility that this 
partnership may open a way for pardon and peace in 
case of repentance. 

(2) That in the government of God, moral evil is al- 
ways counterbalanced and condemned by natural evil. 
This is necessary because a being that has become morally 
evil loves moral evil, but dreads natural evil. Such a 
being is selfish, self-centred, making personal gratifica- 
tion its supreme end or good. Self is abnormally small, 
unsocial, unsympathetic, but sensitive and intense to 
everything that interferes with its own will or desire. 
Hence it shrinks from natural evil, i. e., from pain or 
loss, whether mental or physical. Natural evil, is, there- 
fore, in one of its functions, God’s fitting and indispen- 
sable protest against moral evil, i. e., his punishment of 
it. God cannot punish sin by sin; for sin is wrong and 
forbidden by him, though loved by the sinner. If, then, 
he would discriminate against sin or sinners in the moral 
world, he must do it by means of natural evil. And this 
natural evil, or suffering of pain and loss, must be borne 
either by the sinner or by his associates and friends. 
He must bear it himself, or know that another has borne 
it for him. 


252 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

i. Self-Sacrifice of Christ 

If, then, we seek to ascertain the grounds , reasons, 
or motives for the self-sacrifice, the suffering of Christ, 
as they are taught, or suggested, by the New Testament, 
the following groups of passages deserve attention : — 

1. Those which show the necessity of Christ's 
self-sacrifice : Matt. 16:21; 26:54; Mark 8:31; Luke 
9:22; 13:33; 22:37; 24:7, 26, 44, 46; John 3:14; 
9:4; 12:34; 20:9; cf. Acts 2:23; 3:18, 21 ; 4 : 10-12 ; 
John 12:24, 27, 32, 33; Rom. 8:33, 34; Heb. 2:17; 
8:3; 9:16, 22, 23, 26 ; Rev. 13:8; 5:9. Thus the lan- 
guage of Jesus himself, of Peter, of John, of Paul, and 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews represents the suffering 
and death of Christ as embraced in the eternal purpose 
and foreknowledge of God, as the procuring cause or 
ground of human salvation, and as the theme of praise 
and adoration in the heavenly state. 

There can be no serious doubt as to the meaning of 
such language as is found in the places referred to. The 
death of Christ must have been for some reason neces- 
sary in order to the restoration of fellowship between 
God and men. It must have had some indispensable 
relation either to the repentance of men, or to their 
forgiveness in case of repentance, or to both of these. 
If not, the words of Christ and those of his Apostles are 
inexplicable. But it seems very improbable that Christ’s 
death was necessary to make his moral influence strong 
enough to move men to repentance. There were penitent 
and believing men before the death of Christ was known 
to them, though not before it was known to God ; and as 
it was known to God from the beginning, it may have 
had an important relation to his forgiveness of sins in 
case of repentance, but it could not have had any moral 
influence on sinners leading them to repentance. Be- 
sides, others have suffered martyrdom, with all possible 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 253 

tortures, because of their love of God and of truth ; why 
are they not equal to Christ as saviour ? Is the heroism of 
a sick man less noble than the heroism of a well man? 
Is. the fidelity of one who is morally weak less touching 
than the fidelity of one who is morally strong? Think 
of the sufferings of Paul through thirty years of heroic 
toil ending in martyrdom! Why do they not lead men 
to repentance? Why are not men saved by them as well 
as by Christ’s ? 

2. Those which make God’s love to men the reason 
for Christ's self-sacrifice : John 3:16, 17; 1 John 4:9, 
11 ; 1 Cor. 1:3, 4; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Matt. 5:44-48; 1 
Pet. 1:3-5; Rom. 8 : 32 ; cf. Luke 19 : 10 ; Matt. 20:28; 
Gal. 2:20; Phil. 2:5 f. ; 2 Cor. 8:951 Tim. 2 : 4-6 ; Eph. 
1:7; 2:4. 

These passages represent God the Father as being 
moved by his love to men when he sent his Son to save 
them ; and they also represent Jesus Christ as influenced 
by the same feeling and purpose in his work for their 
salvation. Love seeks the well being of its objects, and 
the highest love seeks their highest well being, their. best 
good. In the case of sinful man this must include, first , 
their deliverance from sin, for sin is unnatural and debas- 
ing. It destroys fellowship with God and with men, 
and it brings darkness and discord into the sinner’s moral 
life. Secondly, their deliverance from the penalties of 
sin, i. e., from the loss and pain attached to wrong-doing 
by the author of our being. Thirdly, their restoration 
to fellowship with God and men. 

But evidence that God was moved by love to men to 
give his only begotten Son for their salvation, does not 
of itself show zvhy this gift was necessary, or how it 
tended to such a result. It may have been necessary ( 1 ) 
because without it men could not be persuaded to repent 
and believe, or (2) because without it God could not 
righteously save them in case of repentance, or (3) for 


254 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


both these reasons. But if the second reason is re- 
jected as absurd, must we not conclude that either no 
other revelation of himself which God could make would 
lead men to believe in him, or that some men, at least, 
can be saved independently of Christ’s self-sacrifice, 
and, hence, that his death was not strictly necessary 
in order to their salvation; indeed, that it has no con- 
nection with their restoration to fellowship with God? 
If then the passages referred to after I., are to be 
allowed their full force, we are not at liberty to reject 
the second reason mentioned, and to put all the stress 
and emphasis on the first. 

3. Those which make God’s righteousness along 
with his grace, the reason for Christ's self-sacrifice : 
Rom. 3:25, 26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:10, 13; 1 Tim. 
2:5, 6 ; Heb. 9 : 14, 15, 28 ; 1 Peter 2:24; Phil. 3 : 9. 

The first passage referred to, Rom. 3 : 25, 26, is the 
plainest and most comprehensive. In it Paul declares 
that Christ suffered death by the will of God for the 
purpose of exhibiting God’s righteousness, and that this 
exhibition of God’s righteousness was called for by 
his forbearance towards sinners in pre-Christian times, 
as well as by his now accepting, by an act of free grace, 
those who believe in Christ, as righteous, or as though 
they were righteous. 

Now, unless this transaction was itself righteous on 
God’s part, it could not have been an exhibition of his 
righteousness. Was it right, then, for the Supreme 
Ruler to require a sinless being to suffer for the good of 
sinners ? In answer to this question we may say : — 

(1) It is right for the Supreme Ruler to require a 
sinless being to do whatever it is right for such a being 
to do. This is self-evident, and surely to suffer in 
behalf of another is oftentimes right. For the moral 
heroism which endures without pride the greatest loss or 
pain for the relief of a fellow being is reckoned almost 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 


2 55 


divine. If, then, the sacredness of moral order in the 
universe requires that sin be followed inevitably by loss 
or pain, but under certain conditions permits good men 
to bear this natural evil in place of the bad, as the only 
means of their salvation, we can easily see how the 
death of Christ illustrated the righteousness of God. 

(2) It is right for God to require of sinless beings 
action which is like his own in moral aim, i. e., action 
which is directed to the same ends as his own, so that 
there will be perfect fellowship between them. Hence, 
if he sustains moral order in the universe for its own 
sake, and because he wishes men to see and admire it, 
they may be properly required to reverence and sustain 
such order, even at the cost of almost any suffering that 
does not imply sympathy with sin. Now, the suffering 
of Christ was that of a theanthropic being, of One in 
whom divinity and humanity were perfectly joined in 
aim and spirit, and in whom there was no fellowship 
with sin or moral disorder. Is it incredible that such a 
being should do his utmost to ratify every feature of 
God’s moral government, including that which attaches 
natural evil, as a penal consequence, to moral evil? Or 
that he should prefer to bear the rightly imposed and 
vindicatory suffering of those to whom he offers release 
upon condition of true repentance? This view of the 
case does not diminish the evidence which his suffering 
gives of love to sinners. It only shows the moral ne- 
cessity of that suffering, however great and mysterious, 
but it casts no doubt upon his bearing it in their behalf 
and for their salvation. 

The second passage referred to, 2 Cor. 5:21, ls also 
very striking and instructive. It declares that God 
“ made him (viz., Christ) who knew no sin, to be sin 
for us, that we might become God’s righteousness in him” 
(tov fJir) yvovra a pa pr lav virep rjp&v apaprlav eirolrjaev, 
cva rjpeis yevapeOa hucaio<ivvr\ deov ev clvtm). 


256 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

The substance of Prof. Boise’s note is-this : “Him who did 
not know sin (in his own experience, in his own nature), 
he (i. e., God) made (to be) sin; the abstract word, as in 
the next clause, righteousness ; sin, just that, and that alone; 
more emphatic than if he had said, made him a sacrifice for 
sin; or made him a sinner” 

The obvious sense of the passage is that, though 
Christ had no acquaintance with sin in his own heart or 
life, yet owing to his connection with mankind God 
treated him as if he were responsible for sin in them; 
also that he did this in order that they might enter into 
union with * Christ and be accepted as righteous, or as 
if they were righteous. Surely this teaching is in per- 
fect accord with that in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 
Consider especially the last clause of Rom. 3 : 26. 

Equally in point is the third passage referred to: Gal. 
3: 10, 13. “ For as many as are of works of law (i. e. } 
as depend on works of law) are under a curse; for it is 
written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all the 
things written in the book of the law, to do them ” ; and 
it is assumed that no one has done this. But on the 
other hand, “ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, having become a curse for us ; because it is written, 
Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.” A curse is 
punishment for breaking the law of God. One who 
bears such punishment is said to be accursed. “ Hav- 
ing become a curse for us ” is but a stronger expression 
for having been subject to punishment for us. And by 
this, the Apostle affirms, Christ purchased our deliver- 
ance from the curse of the law (Kpto-ro? rj pas i^rjyopaaev 
etc rrjs /carapas rov vopov). This surely refers to vicarious 
penal suffering. The connection, the alliance, between 
Christ and those for whom he died, was such that 
he could properly bear the natural evils due to sin for 
them. 

In the fourth passage, 1 Tim. 2:5, 6, it is said that 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 257 

there “ is one mediator between God and men, a man 
Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the 
testimony in its own seasons.” The expression “ a ran- 
som for all ” ( avTiXvrpov virep iravrcov) is particularly 
clear in respect to the vicarious significance of Christ’s 
voluntary death, and in respect to its relation to all men. 
See the preceding verses for the meaning of “ all.” 

But if Christ suffered for all men, and any of them 
refuse to accept his aid, must they not also suffer the just 
penalty of their sins? Yes, both reason and revelation 
affirm this. Was not, then, some of the Saviour’s suffer- 
ing useless? In a moral respect, no. It revealed the 
willingness of God to save all who would consent to be 
saved in the only possible way, or on the only terms con- 
sistent with the holiness of God or the welfare of his 
intelligent universe. And it may be questioned whether 
any more suffering was necessary to redeem all men 
than to redeem any number of men. We cannot speak 
positively on this matter. The most that we can teach 
with confidence is that the nobler any being is in the 
sight of God the more valuable must his service be. The 
same amount of voluntary suffering must therefore do 
more for a government which it honors, if the sufferer 
be high and holy, than if he be mean and sinful. 

In the fifth passage, Heb. 9:15, 28, there are two 
points of special interest to our study, one that Christ’s 
death had a redemptive efficacy for transgressors under 
the first covenant, and the other that his second coming 
will be “ apart from sin,” while his first coming was not 
apart from sin, but closely connected with it, since he 
“ was offered to bear the sins of many.” The word 
rendered “ to bear ” is aveveyrcelv , while the word 7 rpocrrj- 
vey rcev is used in verse 14 of his offering himself with- 
out spot unto God, and Trpoo-evexOels, of his being offered, 
in verse 28. Compare Isa. 53:12; Ez. 4:5; 14:10; 
18: 19, 20; Lev. 5: 1, 1 7; 17:16; 20: 19; 24: 15; Num. 


258 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

5:31; 9:13; 14:34; 30:16; also Num. 14:33; Ez. 

23 : 35- 

The sixth passage (i Pet. 2:24) is also interesting 
when studied with the one in Hebrews : “ Who himself 
bore our sins in his own body on the tree ” (o? r a? afiap- 
Tta? tj/ulcov auro? avtfvey/cev ev to) aco/juan avrov ei rl to 

On this language Mason, in v Ellicott’s Commentary,” says : 
“ St. Peter asserts that Christ, in his boundless sympathy with 
fallen man, in his union with all mankind through the incar- 
nation whereby he became the second Adam, actually took 
as his own our sins, as well as everything else belonging to 
us. He was so identified with us, that in the great Psalm 
of the Messianic sacrifice he calls them, ‘ my sins/ Ps. 40: 14, 
sinless as he was” (cf. Matt. 8: 17). 

4. Those which represent Christ's self-sacrifice for 
sinners as propitiatory: i John 2:2; 4:10; Rom. 
3:25; Heb. 2:17; cf. Luke 18:13. It is unnecessary 
to reexamine these texts. But it is well to bear in 
mind while studying them, that God is spoken of by 
the sacred writers as greatly displeased with sinners. 
He pities, but he also blames them. And his displeasure 
is perfectly consistent with his intense desire for their 
welfare. Indeed, the greater his love the greater may 
be his indignation if the object of that love is mean and 
sinful. 

The passages given above appear to mean that Christ’s 
self-sacrifice was called for by God’s desire to be gra- 
cious to sinners without concealing from them his right- 
eousness, or allowing them to think lightly of their own 
sins. In other words, his pardon could be offered them 
only on condition they were brought into hearty fellow- 
ship with his entire moral nature and government, with 
his attitude toward sin as well as toward holiness ; 
and this could not be effected by any less sacrifice than 



JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 259 

the death of his Son. By allying himself with mankind 
and by taking on himself the natural evil which expressed 
God’s view of the desert of sin, Christ made it possible 
for God to be righteous while he accepted as righteous 
those who came to be of one mind with Christ and wel- 
comed eternal peace through him. This appears to be 
the Apostle’s idea of propitiation ; and it confirms our 
position that the righteousness as well as the love of God 
called for the self-sacrifice of the Messiah in behalf of 
sinners, if any of them were to be saved. 

This view may be confirmed by a study of the Mosaic 
institute of sacrifice, and especially of the word which 
signifies to make propitiation or ' atonement. For, ac- 
cording to Heb. 10: 1, the Mosaic ritual “ had a shadow 
of the good things to come,” though not the things them- 
selves. See Lev. i : 4; 4: 4, 20, 26, 31, 35 ; 5 : 6, 10, 13, 
16, 18; 6:7, 15; 8: 14, 15; 16: 16, 18, 20, 30, 33; 17: 11 ; 
19 : 22 ; Ex. 29 : 36 ; 30 : 10 ; ( cf. 1 Sam. 3 : 14) . In that 
ritual, bloody sacrifices were offered to make propitia- 
tion for every sin or trespass of a certain character which 
had been committed by the nation, the priests, or any one 
of the people. Other things were accepted as thank- 
offerings, but not for sin or trespass offerings, unless 
the guilty party was unable to provide an offering with 
blood. “ Without the shedding of blood there was no 
remission.” God would accept nothing else as a suitable 
emblem of what his holiness required. Many unevan- 
gelical scholars admit that Paul and John and the 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews believed that Christ’s 
death was vicarious. 

Says Orelli : “ The idea of vicarious expiation is central 
to Christianity. It is imaged already in the Old Testament 
expiatory sacrifice, of course, but inadequately, inasmuch as 
animal life can be no valid substitute for man’s. But the 
Levitical priest might long continue to lead his sacrificial 
animal to the altar, before becoming aware that his act was 


26 o 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


inadequate, having its justification only in something future, 
to which it pointed ” (p. 39). 

5. Those which represent Christ's self-sacrifice as 
a ransom for sinners: Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 
1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:12; Titus 2 : 14 ; 1 Peter 1 : 19 ; Luke 
24 : 21 ; Rom. 3 : 24 ; 8 : 23 ; 1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 
1:7, 14; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:15; 11:35; 1 Cor. 6:20; 
7 : 23 ; 2 Peter 2:1; Rev. 5 : 9; 14 : 3, 4. 

For the meaning and use of Xvrpoco, Xvrpov , XoTpcocri*;, 
aTroXvTpw(TLS , and i^ayopd^co, see the words in Thayer’s 
Lexicon of the New Testament, and 1 Cor. 7:23; Eph. 
5: 1 6; Col. 4:5. 

Three questions suggest themselves at once, viz., What 
is represented as the ransom paid? From what are 
sinners delivered by means of it? and How is it related 
to their deliverance? 

(1) The ransom is spoken of as being Christ’s life, 
his own blood, his precious blood, his death, or himself, 
as will be seen by consulting Matt. 20:28; Heb. 9: 12; 
Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:17; Rev. 5:9; cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 
7 : 23. But as the death of Christ on the cross was only 
the lowest point of his humiliation and the extremity 
of his passion, it may properly be interpreted as including 
all his suffering in behalf of sinners. Of course, giving 
his life means the same as suffering death. 

(2) The second question, From what are sinners de- 
livered by this ransom ? is not so clearly answered by the 
language of Scripture. But, in Eph. 1 : 7 and Col. 1 : 20, 
Paul makes redemption through his blood equivalent 
to the forgiveness of trespasses or sins, while elsewhere 
he makes forgiveness of sins and justification insepa- 
rable, if not identical, and attributes them to God. See 
Rom. 4 : 7, 8. It would seem, therefore, that sinners are 
delivered from divine condemnation or punishment in 
view of the death of Christ whom they accept as their 
Saviour. In Gal. 3: 13, Christ is said to have redeemed 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 261 

his followers “ from the curse of the law,” meaning by - 
this expression, from the punishment of sin, from the* 
doom of those who have broken the divine law. Essen- 
tially the same thought is expressed in Heb. 9: 15, which 
affirms that the deliverance of good men of the Jewish 
economy from their transgressions was due to the death 
of Christ. And this must signify their deliverance from 
the penalty of their transgressions, since the death of 
Christ could not have been the moral influence which led 
them to believe in God. 

But there are passages which find the effect of Christ’s 
sacrifice in deliverance from other things besides the guilt ' 
and punishment of sins, e. g., from “ all iniquity ” : 1 
Titus 2:14; from “ a vain course of life ” : 1 Peter 1:18; 
from “ the body ” regarded as “ frail and mortal ” : Rom. 

8 : 23 ; from “ the earth ” : Rev. 14:3; or from “ men ” : 
Rev. 14: 4. Yet all these are involved in deliverance from 
the power and penalty of sin. 

(3) Our answer to the third question, How is the self- 
sacrifice of Christ related to the deliverance of men 
from natural and moral evil? is one of special impor- 
tance. In the first place, then, we believe in the moral 
influence of Christ’s death on the hearts of sinners. A 
knowledge of his self-sacrifice for them tends powerfully 
to lead sinners to repent and trust in the mercy of God. 
Beholding One, who was himself so like God in character, 
ready to bear so much pain and reviling for their good, 
tends to excite in them hope in the mercy of God. In 
the second place, we believe that this hope is likely to 
become conviction or faith, if they see that Christ suf- 
fered for them what they must otherwise have suffered 
themselves, the fitting penalty of their sins, and that he 
suffered this that they might be delivered from it and 
have peace with God. An utterly impartial study of 
the New Testament will lead to the conclusion that its 
writers believed in this double relation of Christ’s self- 


262 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sacrifice, — to the love of God for men, on the one hand, 
and to his regard for his own righteousness on the other. 
It expressed them both; it was called for by both; and 
its moral influence over men is increased by its moral 
relation to God, by the fact that it was demanded by his 
righteousness as well as his love. 

6. Those which represent Christ's self-sacrifice as 
qualifying him to make intercession for men , espe- 
cially for believers in him : 1 John 2:2; 5:16; Heb. 
7 : 25, 26, 27 ; 9:24 with context, vs. 23-28 ; John 
16:23, 24;* 14:6; Acts 4:12; cf. John 14:16, 26; 
15:26; Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:26, 27. The least which 
these passages can mean is this, that in granting to men 
forgiveness of their sins, or any other gracious gift, God 
takes account of the self-sacrifice of his Son in their 
behalf. And this seems to be the very core of the gospel 
as understood by John, by Paul, by the writer of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and indeed by Christ himself as 
reported by John. 

Hence there are two directions in which the moral 
influence of Christ’s sacrificial work makes itself felt: 

a. On the mind of the Father. See John 16:23, 
24 ; 1 John 2:2; 5 : 16 ; Heb. 7 : 25-27 ; 9:24. His pres- 
ence with the Father is a perpetual plea for his people. 

b. On the minds of men through the Holy Spirit and 
the word of truth. See John 16:8-15; Rom. 8: 15, 26, 
27, 32 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 23, 24. 

At this point may be considered a very interesting 
question, viz., Does not the efficacy of intercessory 
prayer rest on the same principle of moral government 
as the efficacy of vicarious suffering? Does it not as- 
sume that, in dealing with one moral being, God may 
properly take into account the action of other moral 
beings, associated with that one, and interested in his 
welfare? 

(a) Men are not individuals, wholly separate from 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 263 

one another, but a race, a society, a family of persons 
closely united and largely responsible for one another’s 
good. Every one is to a certain extent his brother’s 
keeper. God would have spared Sodom if there had 
been ten righteous men in the city. And there is' no 
limit to the vicarious service which God may accept from 
one man for another, provided it is not wrong in itself 
or an encouragement to sin in others. This service may 
be one of suffering or of work. 

(b) Indeed, we do not see why every moral being in 
the universe may not be responsible, in proportion to 
his ability, for the character and happiness of the whole. 
But this responsibility is specially evident in the case of 
persons who belong to the same race, inasmuch as they 
receive the benefits of the race connection. An imperfect 
society is better than no society, and that it may be the 
best possible, we see the righteousness of our being re- 
quired to love our fellow-men as we do ourselves. They 
are our peers and kinsmen, and such love is not only 
their due but also for the good of all. 

(c) Moreover, assuming that God may rightly deal 
with us as a family or race, and require us to love and 
serve each other, we can see the propriety of his ac- 
cepting the service of one in behalf of another, i. e., of 
treating us in this respect as a single family or unit, in 
so far as such treatment does not sanction or encourage 
wrong-doing on the part of individuals. But forgive- 
ness of sin for Christ’s sake does not encourage sin. For 
no one is forgiven, unless he accepts of Christ as his 
Saviour and Lord, and this acceptance of Christ involves 
a germ of new life in the soul, a beginning of trust and 
loyalty towards God, which, under the fostering hand 
of grace, will issue in perfect holiness. 

So important to a preacher of the gospel is a well con- 
sidered belief concerning the sacrificial work of Jesus 
Christ, and so much earnest thought has been given to 


264 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

this subject by devout scholars, that it seems desirable 
to review briefly some of the most interesting and sug- 
gestive 


11. Theories of the Atonement 

In mediating between God and men it appears to have 
been necessary for Christ to be both divine and human; 
and the Apostles emphasize his incarnation, his suffering, 
his death, his resurrection, and his intercession both with 
the Father and, mediately, with men: John 1: 13; Phil. 
2:5 sq. ; 1 John 2:2; Rom. 5:6; Heb. 7:25; John 
14:26 (Parakletos). All these are embraced in his 
mediatorial work, and theories of the Atonement should 
take account of them all. Yet the sacrificial death of 
Christ may be used, for the sake of brevity, as implying 
all the rest. 

There are two obvious ways of studying the principal 
tneories as to the reasons for Christ’s self-sacrifice in 
procuring human redemption, viz., the historical and the 
logical ; the word “ self-sacrifice ” being now used in a 
comprehensive sense to signify the entire humiliation and 
suffering of Christ. The latter is preferred as briefer 
and more appropriate to this department, systematic 
theology. 

Theories of the Atonement may be classified in a 
general way as follows : — 

1. Theories which affirm that the Atonement made 
by Christ benefits and saves men by its moral influence 
on their characters, and by that alone. This is some- 
times called the Moral Influence Theory, though it as- 
sumes several different forms. It looks upon God as 
love and nothing but love, upon sin as its own punish- 
ment, and upon men as being saved by becoming good. 
The work of Christ tends to save men by assuring them 
of God’s love and persuading them to love him. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 265 

The views of William Ellery Charming will fairly 
represent these theories. 

“ We believe,” he says, “ that Jesus was sent by the Father 
to effect a moral or spiritual deliverance of mankind; that 
is, to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring 

them to a state of everlasting purity and happiness He 

accomplishes this sublime purpose by a variety of methods: 
by his instructions respecting God’s unity, parental character, 
and moral government ; by his promises of pardon to the 
penitent and of divine assistance to those who labor for 
progress in moral excellence by the light which he has 
thrown on the path of duty ; by his own spotless example ; by 
his threatenings against incorrigible guilt; by his glorious 
discoveries of immortality; by that signal event, the resur- 
rection, which powerfully bore witness to his divine mission, 
and brought down to men’s senses a future life; by his con- 
tinual intercession, which obtains for us spiritual blessings; 
and by his power of raising the dead, judging the world, and 
conferring the everlasting rewards promised to the faithful.” 

All this is true ; but in it there is no recognition of the 
Saviour’s work as necessary in order to the forgiveness 
of sins. God the Father is supposed to be “ originally, 
essentially, and eternally placable,” and a return to right- 
eousness by the sinner the sole and sufficient reason 
for his pardon. Yet it is noticeable that “ the continual 
intercession of Christ obtains for us spiritual blessings.” 
This must mean that Christ’s intervention is a reason 
why God bestows “ spiritual blessings ” upon men ; and 
if “ spiritual blessings ” are bestowed at his request, why 
not the remission of sins as well? I can see no other 
principle in the one case than in the other. Intercessory 
prayer rests on no other principle than this, that God 
helps one in view of the desire or action of another. 
He accepts and honors, within certain limits, vicarious 
service. Wherever society exists under the sway of 
general laws, vicarious service and sacrifice must be 


266 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


given a large place — much larger than is commonly 
supposed. 

2. Theories which affirm , not only the moral influence 
of the Atonement, but also that it was such a substitute 
for the penalty of sin as makes it consistent with 
God’s holy character for him to forgive and save all 
those who trust in Christ. 

Under this class may be put the teaching of Edwards 
A. Park of Andover, Mass. In his pamphlet, entitled 
“ The Associate Creed of Andover Theological Semi- 
nary ” (p. 4), the following language is employed: 

“ The Son of God took upon himself the office of high 
priest, and offered his blood as a satisfaction for all men ; his 
sacrificial pains and death were inflicted by his Father, were 
representative of the penalty which the Father had threat- 
ened to men, were substituted by the Father for the actual 
punishment of believers, were equivalent to that punishment 
in honoring and vindicating the Father’s holiness, distribu- 
tive justice, and law; were needed, first of all, on God’s 
account and in order that he may forgive the sins of the 
penitent; and, therefore, the grace of Christ as manifested in 
his sacrificial pains, is the brightest of all his glories.” 

In other words, “ The principle on which the atonement is 
the sole ground for God’s directly blessing men is this, that 
it exhibits and honors the holiness, the distributive justice, 
and the law of God, and so promotes the holiness and happi- 
ness of the universe as to satisfy God’s general justice in 
rescuing sinners from unconditional punishment, in adopting 
measures for persuading them to repent.” “ The moral 
worth of Christ’s sacrifice was owing, (1) To his thean- 
thropic nature. As the God-man he represented perfectly the 
mind of God and all that is good in the race of mankind. 
His life was a revelation of what God is and of what man 
ought to be. (2) To his voluntary suffering which ended 
in a dreadful death on the cross. This suffering, resembling 
as closely as the case permitted, the penalty due to men for 
their sins, was offered by him and accepted by the Father as 
a substitute for the punishment that must otherwise have 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 267 

been inflicted upon sinners — the only condition being, that 
sinners should repent and believe in Christ. The substitute 
was adequate, since its influence in support of a holy govern- 
ment is as great as the unconditional punishment of sinners 
would have been; nay, presumably, far greater.” (From 
class-room notes by two of Dr. Park’s pupils.) 

It will be observed that this theory rests upon govern- 
mental analogies. God is a holy Ruler, and the atone- 
ment answers the question, How can he save men from 
the just punishment of their sins? 

3. Theories which affirm , not only the moral influence 
of the Atonement , hut also that it consisted in Christ's 
bearing the penalty to which sinners are justly con- 
demned. 

The theory of Dr. Shedd is stated by him in the fol- 
lowing extracts, which set forth the principles emphasized 
by this able theologian : 

“ The death of incarnate Deity ... is expiatory. As such 
it is related to the attribute of justice in the Creator and to 
the faculty of conscience in the creature. It sustains the 
same relation to both. It satisfies that which would be dis- 
satisfied both in God and man if the penalty of sin were 
merely set aside and abolished by an act of will. It placates 
an ethical feeling which is manifesting itself in the form of 
remorse in the conscience of the transgressor, only because 
it has first existed in the nature of God in the form of a 
judicial displeasure towards moral evil.” “ The operation of 
all the other Divine attributes, love itself not excepted, is 
conditioned and limited by justice. For whatever else God 
may be, or may not be, he must be just. . . . There is ample 
evidence from natural religion that the Deity is holy and im- 
partial ; but it is only from revealed religion that the human 
mind obtains its warrant for believing in the Divine clem- 
ency.” 

“ The mercy of God consists in substituting himself incar- 
nate for his creature for the purpose of atonement. Analyzed 
to its ultimate elements, God’s pity towards the soul of man 


2 68 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


is God’s satisfying his own eternal attribute of justice for it. 
It does not consist in outraging his own law, and the guilt- 
smitten conscience itself, by simply snatching the criminals 
away from their retributions ... or in substituting a partial 
for a complete atonement ; but in enduring the full and entire 
penal infliction by which both are satisfied.” 

“ The primal source of law has no power to abolish penalty 
any more than to abolish law, but it has full power to sub- 
stitute penalty. In case of the substitution, however, it must 
be a strict equivalent, and not a fictitious or nominal one. . . . 
A guilt-smitten conscience is exceedingly timorous, and 
hence if there be any room for doubting the strict adequacy 
of the judicial provision that has been made for satisfying 
the claims of the law, a perfect peace, ‘ the peace of God/ is 
impossible ! Hence, the doctrine of a plenary satisfaction by 
an infinite substitute is the only one that ministers to evan- 
gelical repose.” 

The theory of Dr. Shedd is open to criticism at three 
points: (i) It pronounces justice to be the fundamental 
attribute of God which conditions and limits the action 
of all other attributes. This, however, is hardly a self- 
evident truth. It may be that love is just as fundamental 
as justice. Besides, the word “ justice ” is a shade more 
legal and severe than righteousness. (2) It makes punish- 
ment the normal and only proper correlative of sin. 
Nothing else can take its place. So much sin, so much 
suffering, or justice fails. But this again may not be 
self-evident. Is loss of possible happiness suffering, — 
that is, conscious suffering? (3) It asserts that a sinless 
Ruler may, if he please, in certain cases, bear as a sub- 
stitute the punishment due to his sinful subjects. This 
may be true, but it is far from evident to all religious 
thinkers. 

4. Theories which affirm , not only the moral influence 
of the Atonement , but also that the whole race of man- 
kind is naturally in Christ, and, was therefore 
punished in and by his suffering and death. 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 269 


Take the Andover Theory , represented in “ Progressive 
Orthodoxy,” as an example. A few passages may be 
cited : 

“ The correct and Scriptural starting-point is the media- 
tion of Christ in its universal character. Christ mediates 
God to the entire universe. ... In and through the Logos, the 
Word, the second Person of the Trinity, that which is ab- 
solute fulness and truth in God is communicated into finite 
existence. . . . The created universe and all rational beings 
are through Christ and in Christ. . . . Christ cannot be in- 
different to the least of his creatures in its pain and weak- 
ness, for his universe is not attached to him externally, but 
vitally. He is not a governor set over it, but its life every- 
where. He feels its every movement, most of all its spiritual 
life and spiritual feebleness or disease, and appears in his 
glorious power even at the remotest point ” (pp. 43, 44). 

“ Christ has an organic relation to the race. . . . Humanity 
may thus be thought of as offering something to God of 
eminent value. When Christ suffers, the race suffers. When 
Christ is sorrowful, the race is sorrowful. . . . Thus we can 
regard him as our substitute, not because he stands apart, 
not because he is one and the race another, but because he is 
so intimately identified with us, and because in essential 
respects the life of every one is, or may be, locked in with 

his” (52, 53)- 

“ God does not become propitious because man repents and 
amends, for that is beyond man’s power. He becomes propi- 
tious because Christ, laying down his life, makes the race to 
its worst individual capable of repenting, obeying, trusting; 
and he does this in such a way that God’s abhorrence to sin 
is realized, the majesty of law honored, the sinner and the 
universe convinced of the righteousness of the divine judg- 
ments.” “ The ethical ends of punishment are more than 
realized in the pain and death of the Redeemer, through 
whom man is brought to repentance. His death is a new 
fact, an astonishing, revealing, persuasive, melting fact, in 
view of which it would be puerile to exact literal punish- 
ment of those who are thereby made sorry for sin and 


270 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

brought in penitence to God. But it is inseparable from re- 
pentance or appropriation. There is thus a limit to the 
vicarious principle. . . . To the world before Christ came God 
was unreconciled, because the world had no knowledge of 
God in Christ.” 

“ If no man cometh unto the Father but by Christ, we 
conclude that without him — and almost as certainly we con- 
clude that without the knowledge of him — no man can be 
brought back to God.” “ In the atonement, Christ the Son 
of Man brings all humanity to God. No member of the race 
is separate from him who thus offers himself. In the atone- 
ment God provided redemption for the world by realizing his 
holy love in the eyes of all the nations.” 

hi. Conclusion 

1. There are elements of truth in every one of the 

theories epitomized above. They agree in affirming, 
(1) that the mission and work of Christ, culminating in 
his death and resurrection, are an expression of God’s 
love to men: John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; (2) that they 

are an equally clear and decisive expression of Christ’s 
love to God and men: John 4:34; 10: 11, 15; and (3) 
that they furnish the strongest motives to repentance 
and faith on the part of sinful men: 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 
Cor. 1 : 23. To this extent they all agree with what is 
plainly taught by Christ and his Apostles. 

2. But when they undertake to explain the relation of 
Christ’s work or self-sacrifice to the righteousness of 
God in forgiving and justifying the ungodly, they are 
less successful in satisfying human reason, conscience, 
and feeling. Here or there every one of them seems to 
be weak or obscure, resting on some doubtful premise or 
overlooking some important fact. Perhaps it is impos- 
sible for finite reason to comprehend the action of infinite 
reason so completely as to perceive the absolute con- 
sistency between holy anger and holy love towards the 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 27 I 

same beings at the same instant. But nevertheless, the 
Scriptures represent God as profoundly displeased with 
sinners while intensely desirous of their well being. 

3. They also teach that in and by the work of Christ 
both these emotions of the Divine Mind are expressed, 
illustrated, and satisfied — the one as fully as the other. 
His displeasure with ungodly men might be truly mani- 
fested by their punishment, but it is hard to see how his 
love to them could be so manifested. It could be exem- 
plified by inflicting punishment, if the punishment could 
be made to satisfy conscience, to appease remorse, to 
quiet the feeling of self-condemnation, or to produce 
genuine repentance. Yet of this there is no evidence. 

4. But the humiliation and death of Christ in behalf of 
sinners are said to reveal, that is, to exemplify, the 
righteousness as well as the love of God. How then 
do they exemplify his righteousness? For this is the 
only point of difficulty. Is righteousness illustrated in 
any way whatever by requiring or permitting the inno- 
cent to suffer for the guilty? At first thought this seems 
to be impossible ; but first thoughts are not always final. 
The absolutely right and best way of dealing with a race 
of moral beings is not so easily determined. To know 
what it is, one must know, at least, just what are their 
moral capacities, just how intimately connected they are 
with one another, and just what service they ought to 
render to the author of their being. 

5. The members of a family cannot be dealt with as if 
each one was alone in the world. The members of a 
business firm cannot be dealt with precisely as if they 
were not thus united together. The question, “Am I 
my brother’s keeper ? ” suggests a great deal more of 
truth than Cain supposed. It is by no means self-evident 
that in the best possible treatment of associated moral 
beings, those who are good must not suffer greatly at 
times for the relief and benefit of those who are bad, 


272 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and ought not to do this voluntarily. Nor is there any 
self-evident reason why this suffering may not embrace 
what is justly due to the bad for their sins; at least, 
everything except remorse for personal sin. Indeed, if 
true goodness includes love to enemies or the morally 
bad, it must be right for good men in some instances to 
suffer natural evil in place of the guilty, even when that 
evil is a just punishment for sin, provided the guilty are 
not encouraged in sin by escaping the penalty. 

6. And there seems to be no reason for denying that 
this is true of a divine human being. Such a being may 
act on the same rule of love and sympathy as any other 
moral being. He may bear whatever righteousness and 
love move him to bear in place of sinners, provided it is 
in the nature of the case possible for him to bear it. If 
the punishment of sin includes annihilation it would not 
be possible for him to suffer it. If it includes the feeling 
of personal guilt for sin, as done by himself, it would be 
impossible for him to suffer it, except by way of sym- 
pathy; that is, by entering into the consciousness of the 
sinner and feeling what he feels. If that were possible, 
if he could unite his consciousness for the time with the 
sinner’s so far as remorse is concerned, he would suffer 
the deepest anguish, he would experience the pain of 
moral remorse, — a righteous pain. 

The following propositions appear to be at once 
rational and scriptural, approved by conscience and sup- 
ported by history. In the government of God and there- 
fore in his mind, — 

1. Holiness is the supreme good, the highest end 
sought by the creation of moral beings ; that is, of beings 
in the image of God. 

2. Love, supreme towards God and equal towards 
equals, is a chief element and condition of holiness in 
created beings. 

3. With holiness is associated happiness, the only 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 273 

other conceivable good for conscious beings. Holiness 
is moral good, happiness is natural good. 

4. With sinfulness, the opposite of holiness, are asso- 
ciated pain and loss, the natural opposites of happiness. 
This association is not arbitrary but grounded in the 
Divine holiness. 

5. God’s estimate of the ill-desert of sin is revealed by 
the certainty and amount of natural evil which he has 
connected with it, or by the amount of this evil and the 
difficulty or impossibility of annulling it. 

6. God, who is a God of order, may have made his 
moral universe to be governed by the rule that sin must 
be followed inevitably by loss and suffering, either in the 
person of the sinner or of his associates — this loss and 
suffering being, in fact, the reaction of God’s holiness 
against sin; a reaction, however, mediated by the nature 
of moral beings and their relations to one another and 
to God, in other words, by their social and religious 
nature and environment. 

7. As punishment for sin is a natural evil, a re- 
action against sin, neutralizing to some extent its attrac- 
tiveness and power, a realistic declaration and testimony 
of its utter and inexcusable badness, it may conceivably 
be borne by holy beings in behalf of sinners with whom 
they are closely associated. Vicarious suffering of the 
penal consequences of sin is, therefore, by no means 
absurd under a government which justly requires us to 
love our neighbors as ourselves. The only obstacle to 
this is the fact that all men are sinners. 

8. But this obstacle to vicarious suffering did not 
exist in the person of Jesus Christ. He was human, 
born of woman, born under law, but he was at the same 
time holy, knowing nothing of sin in his own action. He 
could, therefore, bear natural evil, i. e., loss and pain, 
which are the penal fruits of sin, in place and behalf of 
others with whom he had associated himself intimately. 


274 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


9. Jesus Christ was also divine as well as human, 
and, for this reason, it is impossible for us to limit either 
the amount or the significance of his self-sacrifice in 
bearing our sins. But it seems to be self-evident that 
the greater and more sensitive is the being who suffers, 
the greater may be his suffering in a given time, and the 
greater also will be the moral significance or value of a 
given amount of voluntary suffering. 

10. By the holy will of God the Father, Jesus Christ 
consented to suffer an ignominious death at the hands 
of sinners: Acts 2:23; John 19: 11. In no other way 
could he so clearly show his steadfast righteousness in 
human conditions, his absolute loyalty to truth, and his 
unqualified approval of God’s method of government. 
But in that government, punishment for sin is often, if 
not always, inflicted by sinners, either on themselves or 
on others: Mark 9: 48; Isa. 10:5-12; Rev. 22:15. The 
fact that Christ suffered at the hand of sinners is, there- 
fore, no evidence that his suffering was not vicariously 
penal. 

11. This suffering took the place and served the pur- 
pose of punishment for human sin. This is the prima facie 
import of much biblical language : Isa. 53:5, 6; John 
1:29; Heb. 9:11-15; Rom. 3:25, 26; 1 John 2:2; 
4: 10; Heb. 2: 17; 2 Cor. 5: 14, 21; Gal. 3 : 13; Matt. 
20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2 : 6. Note the phrase- 
ology : bearing sin, propitiation, vicarious death, ransom. 
In all these passages and many more, the relation of 
Christ’s death to the righteousness of God and the for- 
giveness of sins is primary and controlling. They present 
the ethical ground or purpose of the atonement ; its direct 
relation to God, the supreme Ruler of the Universe. 

This view of the propitiatory work of Christ accounts 
for its relation to those who lived before his advent, and, 
indeed, to all mankind, a relation which can only be 
explained in this way, or else by supposing a continuance 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 275 

of human probation after death : See Rom. 3:25; Heb. 
9 : I 5 > Gal. 3 : 16, 17, 28. But this relation of the atone- 
ment to God is so far from being inconsistent with its 
convincing and persuasive relation to men that the two 
naturally go together. The suffering of Christ was none 
the less borne for the good of men because it was neces- 
sary to the forgiveness of their sins, or was borne for the 
honor of God in the forgiveness of sins. 

12. Hence the whole work of Christ is often traced to 
the love of God to men. See, especially, John 3:16; 1 
John 4:9, 10; Gal. 2:20; John 15:13. Ordinarily, 
perhaps, this is understood to mean love of men irrespec- 
tive of their moral character, that is, love of them as 
sentient beings, desire for their happiness. But it may 
be love to them as moral and religious beings ; it may 
be desire for their spiritual welfare in communion with 
himself, for their happiness in the way of right living — 
a happiness and inward beauty of which he has made 
them capable, and which is the highest of which they are 
capable. And if so, his love to men as shown by the gift 
of his Son is a love of their possible holiness as well as 
happiness. There is little danger of our overestimating 
the love of God as revealed in the work of Christ, if we 
do not restrict it to a simple desire for the happiness of 
men, in the ordinary sense of the word happiness. 

13. The work of Christ, including his humiliation 
and suffering from first to last, was doubtless intended 
to affect favorably the moral and religious condition of 
other orders of beings besides mankind : Eph. 1 : 10, 20- 
22; 3:10; Phil. 2:10, 11 ; Col. 1:16-20. So little is 
said of the bearing of the incarnation and death of the 
Son of God on the welfare of moral beings not of our 
race that we cannot emphasize this point ; but the Scrip- 
tures call attention to it, and reason justifies a belief that 
it will hereafter be an occasion of wonder and praise. 

14. It must be added that the atonement of Christ 


276 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

ensures the redemption of those only who trust in him. 
Union with Christ by faith is & condition of salvation 
through him. Even those who die in infancy cannot be 
supposed to be saved by Christ unless they are so re- 
newed as to recognize him as their Saviour in the future 
life. 

iv. Objections to this View of Christ’s Self- 
Sacrifice 

Against the doctrine which has now been set forth, 
and which puts such stress upon the propitiatory death 
of Christ in its relation to the grace of God, it has been 
objected. 

1. That his own words show that his work was fin- 
ished before his death: John 17:4; 19:28-30. In reply 
to this objection, it may be said, that Jesus refers in 
the language preserved in the former passage to his 
work in educating the disciples; and that he declares in 
the words of the latter the last prophecy concerning him- 
self to be fulfilled, and, perhaps, the anguish of death to 
be past. As he uttered the words, “ It is finished,” he 
ceased to withstand by divine power the causes which 
would bring death, and passed, by the separation of soul 
and body, into rest. From that moment his relation to 
dying was passive ; his proper work was done. 

2. That death, the penalty of sin, is chiefly spiritual, 
being a loss of blessed fellowship with the Most High, 
together with a sense of his displeasure, aggravated by 
remorse and despair, and that Christ could not have ex- 
perienced these. This objection is commonly thought to 
be insurmountable; but it should not be so considered, 
for the following reasons : — 

(1) It is not biblical, but purely rational. It rests for 
support on the assumed fact, that remorse can only be 
felt for one’s own sin. But this fact is not a self-evident 


‘ JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 277 

truth, nor can it be established by any process of demon- 
stration, for it pertains to the realm of actual life in 
which there are mysteries and seeming contradictions 
unknown to the realm of pure thought. What elements 
of remorse are penal ? 

(2) Beings who have a like spiritual nature can realize 
and bear the spiritual sufferings of one another. And 
“ bearing another’s woe ” is sympathy or compassion, 
when either of these words is used in its deepest sense; 
it is suffering with another, — enduring what his spirit 
endures, sharing, not his bodily ill, but the feeling which 
that ill excites; not his sin and guilt, but the spiritual 
state, the remorse and fear consequent upon them. Ow- 
ing to the imperfection of their knowledge and' love, the 
sympathy of men with one another is only partial, and 
not at all commensurate with that of Christ. For — 

(3) Christ’s human nature was virtually perfect in 
knowledge and love. It had not, to be sure, all knowl- 
edge; but it had at every moment all the knowledge 
requisite to the complete performance of its work for 
that moment. And, for practical ends, this was as good 
as omniscience. His love, too, was equal to his knowl- 
edge ; so that all the conditions for absolute sympathy 
met in his person. When, therefore, we read of his agony 
of soul in the garden and on the cross, culminating in the 
feeling expressed by the cry, “ My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me? ” it is not difficult to believe that 
he experienced the bitterness of remorse and the horror 
of being deserted of God. 

Without professing to have set Torth the way, and the 
only way, in which Christ actually bore the penalty due 
to men for their sins, — without asserting that Christ 
bore just the amount of suffering which awaited sinners, 
unredeemed, in eternity, and without overlooking the 
dignity of his person, which gave inestimable value to 
his death, we think a way has been indicated by which 


278 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


he could have borne penal woe; and if so, however dif- 
ferent in some of its elements may have been the actual 
suffering of soul endured by him from that which we 
have suggested, the objection to our doctrine has been 
sufficiently met. 

The following words of Dr. Bruce deserve to be quoted 
in this place : 

“ Looking, then, into the Scriptures with unbiased mind, 
in order to find out the elements of value in our Lord’s aton- 
ing work, as estimated by the wisdom of the omniscient 
Spirit, we observe that emphasis is laid on at least four 
things: first , the dignity of the sufferer; second , his obedience 
to his Father’s will; third, his love to sinners; and fourth, his 
sufferings themselves.” “ The value of Christ’s sacrifice 
was equal to his divine dignity, multiplied by his perfect 
obedience, multiplied by his infinite love, multiplied by suf- 
fering in body and soul carried to the uttermost limit of what 
a sinless being could experience.” 


v. The Self-Sacrifice of Christ made for all Men 

1. This proposition is rejected by many Calvinists who 
assert the doctrine of a limited atonement. But they do 
this against the obvious meaning of Scripture. The 
language of Christ weeping over Jerusalem is convincing 
proof that he offered salvation to multitudes who rejected 
it: Matt. 23:37. See also John 3:16, 17; 1 John 2:2; 
Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1. It would be easy to increase the 
number of such testimonies. 

2. This proposition does not conflict with the doctrine 
of God’s eternal purpose and foreknowledge. God does 
many and great things for those who persist in rebellion 
against his authority. He is the Saviour of all men, but 
especially of those who believe. 

3. God removes every insuperable objective barrier to 
salvation in the case of those who reject it. This fact 


JESUS CHRIST, HIS PERSON AND WORK 279 

accounts for Christ’s words of lamentation over Jeru- 
salem, and for his great command to make disciples of 
all the nations. It accounts also for Paul’s language in 
respect to the knowledge and guilt of the heathen in the 
first part of his epistle to the Romans. 

4. Hence the self-sacrifice of Christ has some relation 
to the future life of those who die in infancy. We be- 
lieve they are saved, but not without the help of Christ. 
He has come into the world and suffered, that he might 
be the second Adam, the spiritual Head of renewed 
humanity; and it is not too much to believe that he 
renews the hearts of our little ones as they pass through 
the gates of death into the life beyond. If, as we judge, 
this is the best sort of a world for moral probation, it is 
reasonable to hold that God will not remove our children 
from it without preparing them to see Christ in peace 
when they enter Paradise. 1 

1 Literature: Crawford (T. J.), “The Scripture Doctrine of 
the Atonement”; Bushnell (H.), “Vicarious Sacrifice,” etc., as 
Modified by “Forgiveness and Law”; Dale (R. W.), “The 
Atonement”; Hodge (A. A.), “The Atonement”; Park (E. 
A.), “The Atonement” — “Discourses by Edwards, Smalley, 
Maxey, Emmons, Griffin, Burge and Weeks”; Miley (J.), “The 
Atonement in Christ”; Symington (W.), “The Atonement and 
Intercession of Christ”; Edivards (L.), “The Doctrine of the 
Atonement.” Translated from the Welsh by Rev. D. C. Ed- 
wards. 




















































































PART FOURTH 

• CHRISTIAN LIFE, ITS BEGINNING AND GROWTH 


281 


PART FOURTH 


CHRISTIAN LIFE, ITS BEGINNING AND GROWTH 

By Christian life is meant a life that is morally right 
and good, a life which is animated by love to God and 
man, which is pre-disposed to all holy service, and which 
delights in communion with the Father of lights. It is, 
in other words, a manner of living both inwardly and 
outwardly which fulfills the purpose of man’s spiritual 
nature, being holy instead of sinful, subject to the law of 
God instead of subject to the law of self; — it is a life 
of cordial service to God as revealed in Jesus Christ, but 
mediated directly by the Holy Spirit . 1 It will then be 
proper for us to study. 

1 Literature on th.e Spirit and his work: Buchanan (Ja.), 
“On the Office and Work of the Holy Spirit”; Owen (J.), 
“ Pneumatologia ” ; Hare (J. C.), “The Mission of the Com- 
forter”; Parker (J.), “The Paraclete”; Smeaton (G.), “The 
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit”; Augustine (St.), “ De Trinitate 
Dei ” ; and the sections on the Holy Spirit in the Systems of 
Theology. 

See discussion under section III., p. 294 ff. 


282 


CHAPTER I 


The Beginning of Christian Life 
I. Relation of the Father to its Beginning may 

BE SEEN IN THE DOCTRINE OF 
I. ELECTION 

1. In studying the purpose of God, the Scriptures 
were found to represent that purpose as embracing all 
the events of time. But no attempt was made to dis- 
tinguish between the different phases of that purpose. 
Nothing was said, e. g., in respect to the bearing of pur- 
pose on election, or of election on purpose, in the counsels 
of God. This subject, however, fills so large a place in 
the writings of the New Testament, that it must not be 
passed without serious consideration. That it has been 
an occasion of great perplexity and sharp controversy, is 
perhaps an additional reason why it should be reexam- 
ined with care. 

2. The apostle Paul speaks in Rom. 9:11 of “ the 
purpose of God according to election,” and thus teaches 
that God’s purpose to bless Jacob was in accord with his 
choice of Jacob to be heir of the promise to Abraham. 
The choice of Jacob insured him a different place in the 
purpose and plan of God than was assigned to Esau. 
In certain cases, therefore, God’s choice of individuals or 
of peoples has much to do with his purpose and action 
towards them. His treatment of them is affected by the 
office and work for which he has chosen them. And, 
according to the Scriptures, certain men are chosen by 

283 


284 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the Most High for certain privileges, opportunities, ser- 
vices,' responsibilities. 

3. This fact has already been discussed in speaking 
of a written revelation. God has been pleased to employ 
certain men as his messengers to other men, moving them, 
not only to announce his will orally, but also to put it in 
writing. He could not employ them to do such service 
without choosing them for it. This was their election, 
an election to honor, to service, to responsibility before 
God, but it was also, many times, an election to trial, 
reproach, and suffering at the hands of man. 

4. The children of Israel were chosen by the Most 
High to be his people and servants in a special sense and 
for a particular work, that of receiving and preserving 
his truth for themselves and for the world. This was 
their election. This insured them, while obedient, the 
land of Canaan as their home. But it was an election to 
service as well as to privilege and primacy in religious 
affairs. They were put between great nations, though 
but a handful themselves, and without the highest faith 
in God and heroic courage before men they were sure in 
the end to be scattered as chaff before the wind. 1 

5. The Apostles were chosen to be the honored pupils 
and friends of Christ, that they might be heralds of his 
gospel to Jews and Gentiles. This was their election to 
privilege, to honor, to service, to death, and to glory, if 
they should prove faithful to the end. In the case of 
Judas it was followed by selfishness, by captiousness, by 
treachery, and by infamy. An election to privilege and 
opportunity is not always an election to salvation. 

6. But there are passages which appear to teach that 
God chooses men to be saved from sin and death, without 
being moved to this choice by any foreseen merit or self- 
qualification in the persons chosen: James 2:5; 1:18; 
Eph. 1 : 4, 5, 9, 1 1 ; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 8 : 28, 30 ; 9:1 1, 

1 Cf. Bruce, “ Apologetics,” pp. 204, 207. 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 285 

24; Acts 13:48; I Pet. 1: 1-3. According to the most 
obvious interpretation of these passages, the mind of God 
and his grace take the initiative in beginning the new 
life, as we shall see that they do in every feature of its 
growth afterwards. It is also clear that this initiative by 
way of choice is not taken because of any moral worth or 
desert in those chosen. None of the passages mention 
such a reason for the choice, and if we understand the 
teaching of Paul as to the natural man, he is neither sub- 
ject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 

7. Yet there must be good and sufficient reasons in 
the mind of God for his choice of one rather than of 
another, though very few, if any, of those reasons have 
been revealed. One of them is possibly suggested by 
1 Tim. 1:13, where Paul confesses that he “ was for- 
merly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and insolent,” but 
adds, “ I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in 
unbelief.” According to the natural implications of this 
language, the Apostle supposed that, if he had persecuted 
Christians with better knowledge and a belief that Jesus 
was the Christ, the mercy of God would not have been 
extended to him. His sin would have been like the sin 
against the Holy Spirit, which cannot be forgiven. And, 
of course, if such a sinner could not be forgiven, he could 
not have been chosen to be saved. For though the choice 
of God is eternal, it is made with a perfect knowledge of 
every man’s life and character. 

8. Another possible reason for the choice of one man 
rather than another, is the fitness which he has to render 
important service as a follower of Christ. This is pos- 
sibly implied in the assertion of Paul respecting himself. 
Gal. 1:15: “When God, who set me apart from my 
mother’s womb, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that 
I should make known the glad news of him among the 
Gentiles, straightway I did not confer with flesh and 
blood.” (Cf. Acts 9: 15.) If God was moved to seek, 


286 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


by extraordinary means, the conversion of Paul, because 
of the beneficent work that he would do, he was in- 
fluenced by the same reason in choosing him from eter- 
nity to be a subject of his grace and a herald of his 
gospel. And if this was true in the case of so eminent a 
Christian as Paul, who is able to say that it is not true of 
every believer, namely, that he is chosen, not for his own 
sake merely, but also because of his relations to other 
men? For it is God’s plan to employ men who have 
known .his grace as agents in persuading others to accept 
it. Only infinite knowledge could do this wisely, but it 
would be easy for infinite knowledge to do it. 

9. We may be overbold in suggestions, but it seems 
possible that God takes into account the prayers of his 
people in choosing the subjects of his renewing grace. 
He has wisely decided to work by means of human sym- 
pathies, knowledge, and effort, as well as through the 
direct influence of his Spirit on the hearts of men; and 
therefore he condescends to be a co-worker with them, 
according to the laws and impulses of the spiritual nature 
which he has given them. Hence, special outpourings 
of the spirit in answer to prayer within the circles best 
known to the supplicants ! Hence, revivals in the hearts 
of Christians and conversions in their families and 
among the people where they dwell ! And all this ac- 
cording to the foreknowledge and purpose of him who 
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will ! In 
“ the Republic of God,” human and divine natures are 
wondrously intimate and complex. All things work 
together, yet not by way of compulsion. 

10. The method of progress in the inanimate and 
lower animal ranges of existence, by natural selection, is 
perhaps typical of the method of grace revealed in the 
Scriptures and in the history of religion. It appears to 
be the best if not the only method by which the training 
of a race of moral beings can be effected in great part 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 287 

through their own agency, with the least possible limi- 
tation of their freedom from without, and with the 
greatest possible recognition of their worth and service 
# hi cooperation with God. Left entirely to themselves, 
they would all continue in sin ; lifted indiscriminately by 
immediate divine influence to the heights of spiritual 
knowledge and love, the whole benefit of race connec- 
tion, of discipline, of Godlike self-sacrifice for the 
eternal good of others, would be lost. They might be 
like angels, but they could not be ideal men, a family of 
brothers, interdependent and mutually helpful. They 
could not have the sphere which they now have for the 
development of a great and tried character, purified by 
voluntary self-denial, and made beautiful by suffering 
for others. 

Calvinism, reduced to its lowest terms, may then 
be said to teach, that all persons who truly believe in 
Christ were chosen from eternity to be called by the in- 
fluence and justified by the authority of God himself, 
not on account of any foreseen conduct of theirs, either 
before or in the act of conversion, which would be spir- 
itually better than that of others influenced by the same 
grace, but on account of their foreseen greater useful- 
ness in manifesting the glory of God to moral beings 
and of their foreseen non-commission of the sin against 
the Holy Spirit. By the glory of God is meant his true 
character, especially his desire for the highest good of 
men as moral beings. Election is therefore implied in 
God’s purpose to work through men for the salvation of 
mankind, and the wisdom of it depends on his perfect 
foreknowledge of all the powers and conditions of indi- 
vidual men in relation to others in every age of the world. 

Objection 

But against the doctrine of election it has been urged 
that it is inconsistent with the fact that God is “ no 


288 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


respecter of persons.” This statement, however, rests on 
a misunderstanding of the expression, “ no respecter of 
persons,” which means, not that God makes all men just 
alike, or bestows upon them precisely similar or equiva-^ 
lent gifts, but that, in dealing with men as a judge, he 
always deals impartially, estimating character and con- 
duct by one and the same holy standard, and making all 
due allowance for their different circumstances in meas- 
uring the guilt of men: Deut. 10:17; 1 Sam. 16:7; Job 
34 : 1952 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10 : 34, 35 ; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 
2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3 : 25 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 17 ; cf. Matt. 22 : 16 ; 
Mark 12: 14; Luke 20:21; James 2:1; Jude 16. Says 
Dr. Bliss (on Luke 20:21), “To ‘accept the person of 
anyone ’ was the same as to ‘ respect persons/ a Hebrew 
expression for ‘ to pervert justice in favor of any one/ 
to show partiality in pronouncing judgment.” And Dr. 
A. N. Arnold remarks that God “ deals with his crea- 
tures according to his good pleasure, giving to some much 
greater favors than to others ; but he shows no capricious 
partiality, always in his final judgment holding an even 
balance between responsibilities and privileges, without 
regard to merely factitious distinctions.” Sweeping in- 
ferences from such an expression as the one under notice 
are at least rash. 

The relation of the Father to the beginning of Chris- 
tian Life may be seen in the Doctrine of 

II. PROVIDENCE 

1. There is a close connection between providence 
and election. If what has been said is correct, God’s 
choice of his people must have been determined in part 
by the world’s condition at the time when they should 
mingle in its affairs and help to shape its course. If 
their election was to introduce modifying forces into the 
currents of human thought and life, the providence of 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 289 

God may well be supposed to have prepared the world 
for the new spiritual forces to be introduced in pursuance 
of election. The two forms of divine action are inter- 
dependent, meeting at a thousand points and cooperating 
towards the same end. 

2. Beyond question, the course of events in nature and 
society has much to do with the early training and char- 
acter of men. It is not without influence at the time of 
their conversion, and it has an important bearing on 
their growth in grace to the end of life. Take the case 
of heathen nations at the present hour. Who can hesitate 
to believe that, in a certain sense, God’s eternal choice of 
men in China and Japan to be saved through Christ must 
be connected with his eternal purpose fulfilled in prov- 
idence by all the appliances of modern life, — by steam- 
ships, by commerce, by international law, by learning, by 
larger views of truth and duty, and by a network of con- 
ditions too fine and far-reaching for description, but 
facilitating in a surprising manner intercourse between 
Christendom and the outside world? 

3. Thus it appears that God’s providential govern- 
ment of the nations has a bearing on the salvation of men 
through Christ. But it reaches individuals in many other 
ways. How earnestly does Jesus appeal to the Father’s 
care of all ! To the fact that he causes his sun to rise on 
the evil and on the good, and sends his rain on the just 
and on the unjust! It is your heavenly Father who does 
this, he says. All nature is beautiful with his smile. The 
birds of the air and the flowers of the field testify of his 
care. Even sickness and sorrow come to us on errands 
of mercy. The utter weakness occasioned by disease has 
a message of love from the wise Father to stout-hearted 
and self-sufficient transgressors. And the delicious 
restfulness of convalescence whispers sweetly of his 
goodness to one who has been tossed with pain. In the 
parable of the Lost Son who had wasted his portion 


290 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


with harlots, and came at last to be a keeper of swine, 
coveting in vain their miserable fare, we may see the 
hand of providence bringing him to the crisis when he 
came to himself. Who can doubt the close relation be- 
tween providence and the work of the Holy Spirit in con- 
version ? 

II. Relation of Jesus Christ to the Beginning of 
Christian Life 

1. As Revealer of divine holiness and love, especially 
through his self-sacrifice. 

(1) According to the prologue of John’s gospel, the 
preexistent Word was the source of life for the world; 
and that life originated by him was the light of men. 
From the beginning, therefore, the Word has been the 
revealer. By creating man in the image of God, he made 
the very nature of man a means of knowledge in respect 
to the Most High, so that man could not use his own 
powers and study his own constitution without being re- 
minded of him who is “ the First Fair and the First 
Good.” And by surrounding him with numberless be- 
ings, inferior to himself, but of wonderful instincts and 
organs, he gave to him still further light concerning the 
eternal power and Godhead of his Maker. Every form of 
life was a ray of light from the divine Word ; and, had 
man continued holy, there is little reason to suppose that 
he would have needed any better revelation of God. 

(2) But sin entered; and the light became darkness, 
for the eye of the soul was closed. Man read neither the 
lessons of his own constitution, nor those written on the 
face of “ animated nature.” In his self-will he turned 
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped the creature 
more than the Creator. Yet the Revealer did not utterly 
forsake the world of mankind. There were some to 
whom he made himself known in a miraculous way. He 


CHRISTIAN LIFE! BEGINNING AND GROWTH 29 1 

appeared to holy men in dreams and visions; he caused 
them to hear his voice and proclaim to others his will. 
He was the Angel of Jehovah who spoke from the burn- 
ing bush. He led his people by the hand of Moses to the 
foot of Sinai, and gave them the Law. This work of the 
Logos was continued through the whole Mosaic period, 
down to the time of Christ ; the last and greatest mes- 
senger of the Word being John the Baptist, who came 
for a witness that he might bear witness of the true light : 
John 1 : 7. 

(3) Then the Word became flesh; and the Apostle 
testifies, “ We beheld his glory, — the glory as of an only 
begotten from (7 rapa) the Father, full of grace and truth” : 
John 1 : 14. He was himself a bright revelation of the 
Father. His spirit, his teaching, his working, were in 
absolute harmony with the Father’s will. He was in the 
Father, and the Father in him. Every miracle, every 
parable, every rebuke, every invitation, was full of divine 
power, holiness, and love. 

But the revelation of God made by him reached its 
highest point in his sacrificial death. By this more 
vividly than by any thing else in the days of his flesh 
was made manifest the very “heart of Christ ” ; and the 
heart of Christ was also that of God. 

(4) After his ascension into heaven, the Saviour con- 
tinued his teaching by means of his disciples, and espe- 
cially by the inspired ministry of the Apostles. These 
repeated and put on record his sayings, described his 
wonderful works, recounted the story of his crucifixion, 
and bore witness to his resurrection. More than all, they 
expounded the meaning of his death as sacrificial, pro- 
pitiatory, vicarious; and, indeed, as necessary, in order 
that God might be just, and the justifier of him that trusts 
in Christ : Rom. 3 : 26. By this work of the Saviour, 
continued down the ages through the written word and 
the testimony of Christians, the moral power or manward 


292 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


efficacy of the atonement is realized. Thus the preaching 
of Christ and him crucified, is found to be the power 
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. 

(5) As an exhibition of the divine character, the self- 
sacrifice of Christ tends to beget sorrow for sin and trust 
in the Redeemer. As a practical demonstration of Jeho- 
vah’s love, paying homage to righteousness, and yet 
reaching out its hand to recover the lost, it makes the 
strongest imaginable appeal to man’s religious nature. 
For, plainly, a love which meets the claims of divine 
justice, as well as the needs of sinful humanity, must be 
more powerful, as a motive, than a love which has 
nothing to do with the former while accomplishing the 
latter. Whatever emphasizes the holiness and justice of 
God — his sense of what is due to the sinner as a fit 
penalty for his sins — emphasizes at the same time his 
love in providing a way of escape from that penalty. 

In proof of the moral power of the Saviour’s death, 
we appeal : — 

a .To the contrast between the effect of preaching 
before and after that death. The signal effect of the 
gospel on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently, 
though due in part to a wonderful outpouring of the 
Spirit, was also due in a great measure to the saving 
truth which was now preached with unprecedented clear- 
ness. 

b. To the description given by Paid of the gospel 
which he preached: 1 Cor. 1 : 23, 24; 2:2; 2 Cor. 5 : 20, 
21 ; Gal. 3:1. It is certain, from such passages as these, 
that the preaching of Paul had, for its principal theme, 
not the holy life, but the sacrificial death of Christ. He 
relied upon this as most likely to reach the conscience 
and the heart, whether of the unbeliever or of the be- 
liever. 

c. To the account which the Apostles give of the in- 
fluence of Christ’s dying love on their own hearts: 2 Cor. 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 293 

5:15; Gal. 2:20; i John 4:19; cf. 1 Cor. 1:23, 24; 
2:2; 2 Cor. 5:20. The language of these passages 
is remarkably simple, yet forcible : “ For the love of 
Christ constraineth us, since we thus judged that if one 
died for all, then all died; and he died for all, that the 
living might no longer live unto themselves, but unto 
him who died for them, and rose again.” “ I am cru- 
cified with Christ; and I live no longer myself, but 
Christ liveth in me ; and the life which I now live in the 
flesh, I live by faith which is on the Son of God who 
loved me, and gave himself for me.” “ We love him, 
because he first loved us.” 

d. To the history of the Christian religion in every 
land ivhere it has prevailed. It needs but a slight ac- 
quaintance with that history to know how much depends 
on preaching Christ and his cross, — how little real piety 
there is if the latter is neglected, and how poorly mis- 
sionaries succeed who say little of the atonement. 

It is worthy of consideration, that the moral power 
of the self-sacrifice of Christ is due to the union of deity 
and humanity in his person. Had Jesus been only a per- 
fect man, he might have shown very clearly how much 
God would wish a subject of his moral government to do 
or suffer for the benefit of others, but not how much the 
Supreme Ruler himself would be pleased to do or suffer 
for such an end. Yet it is this which the heart of man 
longs to know ; it is the latter, and not the former, which 
will touch the deepest chords of his spiritual nature. See 
Rom. 8:32; John 14 : 9. 

2. As Ruler of the Divine Kingdom. 

(1) The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is now 
acting as mediatorial King, subduing the world to him- 
self : Ps. 2 ; 45 ; 72 ; 1 10 ; Acts 2:33; Heb. 1 : 3, 4 ; 8 : 1 ; 
Isa. 9:6, 7; Luke 1:32, 33; John 8:36; 10:27, 28; 
18:36; Rom. 14:9; Eph. 1 : 22, 23 ; 5 : 23 ; 6 : 5-9 ; Phil. 
3 : 20, 21 ; Col. 1 : 18 ; Heb. 3:6;! Pet. 3 : 22. 


294 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


(2) They teach that he imparts to believers their 
spiritual life: John 14:6; 6:35; 15:1, 4; Rom. 12:5; 
6:11; 1 Cor. 12 : 27 ; 2 Cor. 4:10, 1 1 ; 5 : 17 ; Gal. 2:20; 
Eph. 2: 10; 4: 15, 16; 5:29, 31; Col. 3:3; 1 Cor. 12: 12; 
Gal. 3 : 10, especially through the gift of the Holy Spirit: 
John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:9; 
Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1: 19; 1 Pet. 1: 11. Thus the work of 
the Holy Spirit for the salvation of men is, in a very im- 
portant sense, the work of Christ, and in studying the 
work of the Spirit we are continuing our study of the re- 
demptive work of the Son of God. 

(3) They teach that he is their patron or advocate with 
the Father : Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7 : 25 ; 9 : 24 ; 1 John 2:1. 

(4) They teach that he is to be the final judge of all 
men: See Matt. 16:27; 25:31-46; Acts 10:41, 42; 
17:31; Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor. 5 : 10-15. 

III. Relation of the Holy Spirit to the Beginning 
of Christian Life 

1. Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

It is self-evident that we cannot appreciate the great- 
ness of Christ’s work through the Holy Spirit unless we 
first consider the divinity and personality of the Spirit. 

As the deity of the Holy Spirit is not often denied at 
the present time, it seems unnecessary to examine very 
fully the evidence for it. It will be sufficient to refer to 
certain passages of Scripture : — 

( 1 ) Which ascribe to him divine attributes or actions : 
Acts 28:25 (cf. Isa. 6:8 sq.) ; Heb. 10:15 (cf. Jer. 
31:33; and 10 : 1 ) ; 1 Cor. 2:10, 1 1 ; John 3 : 5, 6 ; (cf. 

1:13)- 

(2) Which associate him in religious acts with the 
Father and the Son: Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 
Peter 1 : 2. 

(3) Which call him God, either directly, or by implica- 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 295 

tion: Acts 5:3, 4; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 
2:22; i Cor. 6 : 19. 

2. Personality of the Holy Spirit. 

It will be found, upon examination, that the amount 
of evidence for the personality of the Holy Spirit is much 
less than that for the divinity of Christ. But it is to be 
borne in mind, that, if the deity of Christ and his personal 
distinction from the Father be admitted, the whole mys- 
tery of personal distinctions in the one God is admitted. 
Triunity is no more incredible than biunity; and, the 
latter being proved, there is no logical or philosophical 
objection to the former. 

In proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, refer- 
ence may be made, — 

(1) To the language of Christ. According to Matt. 
28 : 19, the risen- Saviour commanded his disciples to 
baptize those who should believe in him unto “ the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 
And, as the Father and the Son are certainly conceived 
of as personally distinct, the Spirit must also be person- 
ally distinct from both; for it would be very unnatural 
to associate an operation or influence with persons, in 
such a formula. 

Again, in his discourse to his disciples, before he 
reached the garden of Gethsemane, he promised to send 
them Another Helper, or Advocate, namely, the Holy 
Spirit ; and by calling him “ Another Helper,” he at once 
distinguished him from, and associated him with him- 
self : John 14:16; 15:26; 16: 7-15. 

Besides this, he designated him several times by the 
masculine pronoun “ he,” i/ceivos, thus persisting in the 
personal characterization. It is also true that he used 
the neuter pronoun “ it,” in speaking of him ; but this is 
doubtless due to the circumstance that the word signi- 
fying “Spirit” is neuter in the Greek language: John 
16:7, 8, 13; and 15:26. 


296 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

The Lord also declared that the coming Paraclete 
would “ not speak from himself ” ; which certainly im- 
plies that he could do so, or was conceived of as able to 
do so. Says Meyer, “ This is the denial of something 
conceivable ; and it serves to represent fully the harmony 
of the Spirit’s teaching with that of the Lord.” If the 
Holy Spirit was understood to be a divine energy, or in- 
fluence, or mode of action, the Apostles could hardly 
have needed this declaration. Independent action would 
have been quite out of the question. But, if he was to 
come as a person, the remark was pertinent, and impor- 
tant : John 5 : 19. 

Still further, Christ assured his disciples that the Spirit 
would be “ sent ” by the Father, and by himself ; that he 
would “ come ” from the Father and “ abide ” with them ; 
that he would “ speak ” what he “ hears,” and “ an- 
nounce ” what he “ receives ” ; that he would “ teach ” 
the disciples all things, and “ guide ” them into all the 
truth ; that he would “ bring to their remembrance ” the 
Saviour’s words, and “ reveal to them things to come.” 
If this be mere personification, it is very bold and per- 
sistent and unusual personification ! 

In estimating the weight of these expressions, it must 
be remembered, that they are taken from a discourse 
which was eminently solemn, deliberate, and even doc- 
trinal. John may be called the ontological evangelist; 
and the words of Christ preserved in his gospel are full 
of truth concerning the being of God. 

(2) To the language of the New Testament zvriters. 
For by their language he is associated with the Father 
and the Son : 2 Cor. 13 : 13 ; Matt. 3 : 16, 17 ; Eph. 2:22; 
1 Peter 1:2; Rev. 1:4, 5 ; 5:6 (cf. Zech. ch. 4) ; 1 Cor. 
12:4-6; is represented as. willing and feeling: Rom. 
15:30; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30; and is spoken 
of as if he were a personal agent: 1 Cor. 12:8-11; 
Acts 7:51; 13:2, 4; 28:25; Eph. 1: 14; cf. Phil. 3:3; 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 297 

Acts 21 : 1 1 ; i Tim. 4:1; Rev. 14:13; 2 : 7 ; 3:6 and 
often. 

These passages, in themselves wholly ambiguous, as- 
cribe choice, feeling, will, to the Holy Spirit. According 
to one of them, extraordinary gifts were bestowed by 
him, and at his pleasure ; according to another, he can be 
grieved by worthless speech on the part of believers ; and, 
according tp a third, he can be provoked to anger by 
their rebellion. 

Hence, the Holy Spirit cannot be simply a power or 
energy emanating from God the Father; for such an 
energy has no will of its own, but is directed by him 
who puts it forth. 

We conclude, therefore, from these texts, that there is 
a personal distinction between the Father and the Holy 
Spirit. 


Objections Answered 

But against this conclusion it has been urged, — 

(1) That God the Father is declared to be the efficient 
cause of all extraordinary powers and works for example, 
1 Cor. 12: 6. 

Reply. We think the essential unity of the Godhead 
a sufficient reason for this. The one infinite Being 
operates with undivided energy in each person of the 
Trinity. The Father is not idle in the economy of sal- 
vation, but works in and through the Son and the 
Spirit, who are officially subordinate to him. Hence, 
all their working may properly be referred to him, 
without denying their free, personal, omnipotent agency. 

(2) That the Holy Spirit is often called the Spirit of 
God; for example, in 1 Cor. 12: 5. 

Reply. So, too, is he called the Spirit of Christ; for 
example, in Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4 : 6 ; 1 Peter 1 : 10, 1 1 ; Acts 
16:7; Phil. 1:19. He may have been designated by 


298 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the term, “ Spirit,” because of the special work which he 
performs in the hearts of men. Moreover, we cannot 
say that the phrase, “ Spirit of God,” indicates a more 
perfect union or identity of the Father and the Spirit than 
really exists according to the Trinitarian hypothesis. But 
this objection suggests that the Being who is often called 
Holy Spirit in the New Testament may be the same who 
is called Spirit of God in the Old Testament. 

(3) That the Holy Spirit is represented as being the 
same to God’ which man’s spirit is to man ; for example, 
in 1 Cor. 2:11. 

Reply. This statement is too strong. Paul asserts 
that God is fully known by his Spirit only, — just as 
a man is known by his own spirit. This is the particular 
resemblance insisted on by the Apostle ; and we are not 
authorized to enlarge it by affirming that God’s Spirit 
bears the same relation in other respects to the divine 
nature which the spirit of a man does to human nature. 

We see no good reason, therefore, to doubt the correct- 
ness of our conclusion, as stated above. 

In regard, however, to the whole doctrine of the Trinity, 
it may be well for us to take the advice of Augustine to Con- 
sensus, ii. p. 458, ep. 120: “ Nunc vero tene inconcussa fide, 
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse Trinitatem, et 
tamen unum Deum; non quod sit eorum communis quasi 
quarta divinitas, sed quod sit ipsa ineffabiliter inseparabilis 
Trinitas. . . . Et quidquid tibi, cum ista cogitas, corporeae 
similitudinis occurrerit, abige, abnue, nega, respue, abjice, 
fuge. Non enim parva est inchoatio cognitionis Dei, si ante- 
quam possimus nosse quid sit, incipiamus jam nosse quid non 
sit.” “ Hold thou with unshaken faith that the Father and 
Son and Holy Spirit are a Trinity, and yet one God; not that 
what is common to them is, as it were, a fourth Divinity, 

but that the Trinity itself is ineffably inseparable And 

whatever corporeal similitude may occur to thee when thou 
reflectest on these, avoid, refuse, deny, abhor, reject, flee 
from it. For it is no small beginning in the knowledge of 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 299 

God, if, before we are able to know what he is, we begin to 
know what he is not.” 

(4) Yet it is possible to deny too much, as well as to 
affirm too much, in respect to the Trinity. An able 
writer errs, perhaps, in the former direction. His defi- 
nition of the Trinity is as follows: “a. The Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. b. Each 
has a peculiarity incommunicable to the others, c. Nei- 
ther is God without the others, d. Each with the others 
is God.” This definition is in itself unobjectionable on 
the positive side; but it allows of the following denials, 
which seem to us out of harmony with the New Testa- 
ment : “ In God are not three wills, three consciences, 
three intellects, three sets of affections.” “ He is one 
substance, and in that substance are three subsistencies ; 
but the subsistencies are not individualities.” 

We do not like the word “ individualities,” as applied 
to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; but we are satisfied 
that the New Testament represents them as distinguish- 
able in a personal respect ; that is, the distinction between 
them is of a personal nature. For it teaches (a) that the 
personal pronouns — I, thou, he, we, they, — are appli- 
cable to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, — 
separately or collectively, — three egos, or conscious- 
nesses. (b) That the Son is said to do the will of the 
Father, and the Spirit to be sent by the Father and the 
Son — three centres or faculties of voluntary action, 
(c) That the Father knows the Son and all that he does, 
while the Son knows the Father and all that he does ; and 
the Holy Spirit knows the very depths of God, — three 
centres of knowledge, (d) That the Father loves the 
Son, and the Son the Father: while the Holy Spirit is 
grieved at the coldness of Christians, — three sets of af- 
fections. 

Thus we are taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit 
are personally distinguishable. Objectively, and in re- 


3 °° 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


spect to the universe, their knowledge, will, conscience, 
and affection are one in comprehension and aim; subjec- 
tively, each is personally, though not in substance, dis- 
tinguishable from the others. 

Says Dr. Pepper : “ When we designate the one only 
God in the completeness of his being, life, and activities, 
we do not use the singular neuter pronoun “ it,” nor the 
plural personal pronoun “ they,” but the singular personal 
pronoun “He.” His wm'-personality is more abundantly 
attested than his ^‘-personality. Both are adequately 
attested. If we are to say that his self-consciousness is 
triple, it is not in such sense three that it cannot be, and is 
not, also, one. In Him as in us the self-consciousness as 
one affirms oneness of being, and the triplicity of con- 
sciousness, we know, affirms triplicity within the One 
Being.” 

3. Identity of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God. 

We infer that the terms, “ Holy Spirit,” and “ Spirit 
of God,” as used by the sacred writers, are frequently, 
and perhaps generally, equivalent, from those pas- 
sages : — 

(1) Which interpret the latter appellation by the for- 
mer : Acts 2 : 16 sq. ; cf. Joel 3 : 1-5 ; Acts 10 : 38 ; cf. Luke 
4:18; and Isa. 61 : 1, 2 ; see also Mark 12 : 36. 

(2) Which ascribe the same functions to the Holy 
Spirit, and to the Spirit of God. For example, — 

a. That of quickening the understanding of men 
for important service: John 11 : 51 ; Rom. 12: 6-8; 1 Cor. 
12:28 (cf. verse 7); Ex. 31:3, 6; 35:31, 35; 1 Kings 
3 : 7-12 ; 4 : 29 ; Judges 3 : 10 ; 6 : 34 ; 1 Sam. 11:6; 16 : 14. 

b. That of inspiring men to teach the will of God : 
John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13; Luke 1:67; Acts 21:11; 
2 Pet. 1 : 21 ; 2 Sam. 23 : 2 ; 2 Chron. 20 : 14 ; Ezek. 11:5; 
Micah 3:8; and Judges 6 : 34 ; 1 Chron. 12 : 18 ; 2 Chron. 
24:20; cf . Luke 24 : 49. 

c. That of working directly in their hearts, to sane- 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 301 

tify them: Rom. 5:5; 15:16; John 16:8-12; 3:3-8; 
Ps. 51 : 8-14. 

It would, perhaps, be going too far, were we to af- 
firm that the phrase, “ Spirit of God,” as used in the 
Bible, refers uniformly and distinctively to the Holy 
Spirit. 

Having considered the deity and personality of the 
Holy Spirit, we are now prepared to study his relation 
to the Beginning of Christian Life , 

That the Holy Spirit in carrying out the will of Christ 
is the Originator of such a life may be inferred from 
several representations of Scripture. 

1. Those which speak of the origin of spiritual life 
under the figure of generation or birth: 1 Peter 1 : 3, 23; 
Titus 3 : 5 ; John 1 : 13 ; 3 : 3, 5-8 ; 1 John 2 : 29 ; 3 : 9 ; 4: 7; 
5: 1, 4, 18; cf. 1 Cor. 4: 15; Gal. 4: 19. The circum- 
stance that God, instead of the Spirit of God, is spoken 
of in many of these places, should occasion no surprise. 
For so closely is the Father connected with the Holy 
Spirit and the Son, that it may be truly said, whatever 
either of them does God does. No one can enter into the 
meaning of the sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of 
John and feel any doubt on this point. 

It is sometimes thought that the agency of the Holy 
Spirit in the new birth is that of imparting somewhat of * 
his own essence to the soul ; that, in fact, the substance * 
of man’s spiritual being is increased from the divine sub- * 
stance, and that this is implied by the language of Peter * 
(2 Pet. 1:4), who speaks of his readers as “ having re- 
ceived precious promises that through them they might 
become partakers of divine nature, having escaped from 
the corruption that is in the world through desire.” Es- 
pecially do trichotomists find in these passages an argu- 
ment, for the literal inertness of man’s spirit, — the 
highest constituent of his being, — before conversion. 


3° 2 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


But this is attaching to the word “ nature ” a sense which 
it will hardly bear. How the promises of God could be 
the means of conveying to men God’s essential nature is 
not evident, but how they should be a means of revealing 
to them his loving kindness and truth, and of bringing 
them into a state of moral likeness to him is easy to see. 
“ Divine nature ” is equivalent, in this passage, to divine 
character or holiness. The words TraXivyeveala (from 
ircCkiv and yevecris), avayevvaco (ava and yevvaco), and 
yevvaco with avcoOev , or etc rod 7rvev/iaT0<;, or i/c tov Oeov, 
all signify the new birth as coming from above, that is, 
from God or the Spirit of God. 

2. Those which speak of the origin of spiritual life in 
man under the figure of a resurrection from the dead: 
Rom. 6 : 4, 5, 8, 1 1, 13 ; Eph. 2 : 5, 6 ; Gal. 2 : 19, 20. Res- 
urrection is of course understood to be a divine act. The 
dead do not raise themselves ; only divine power can 
effect such a change in the condition of man. In the 
passages cited from his Epistle to the Romans, Paul 
speaks of Christians as walking in “ newness of life,” and 
as being “ alive from the dead.” In the one from his 
Epistle to the Ephesians he says that “ God made us, 
being dead in sins, alive with Christ.” The moral 
quickening of believers is here conceived of as involved 
in the reanimation of Christ: (cf. Rom. 8: 29, 30; 2 Cor. 
5, 15.) Their final resurrection and exaltation are also 
assured by his own: (cf. Rom. 1:4). 

In the passage from the Epistle to the Galatians Paul 
refers to the change in question as double, — as dying to 
law, that is, to self-righteousness, self-confidence, or self 
as supreme, and rising to a new life which has God for 
its end, and Christ, instead of the human ego, as supreme. 
His language agrees with the view that in the unrenewed 
heart, self holds the place which belongs to Christ. The 
passage in his Epistle to the Romans : 6: 2-14, also refers 
to this double change, or rather to the two aspects or 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 


3°3 


sides of the change. Notice that from one point of view 
this entrance upon a new life is dying to the old life ; yet 
it does not imply the extinction of any faculty of the 
soul or a diminution of its essence in any respect. It 
only implies a new kind of life, a ceasing to do evil as 
truly as a beginning to do well. 

3. Those zvhich speak of the beginning of Christian 
life under the figure of a creation , or a new creation: 2 
Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10; Gal. 6: 15, “ So that if any one 
is in Christ he is a new creation ; the old things passed 
away : behold, they have become new ” (/ ccuvd ). “ For 
we are his workmanship (7 roirjpa), created (/cTtaOevres) in 
Christ Jesus unto good works ” (epyois). “ Put on the 
new man who was created after God (t ov tcara Oeov 
KTLaOevra) in the righteousness and holiness of truth ” : 
Eph. 4:24. So, too, in Col. 3:9, 10, “Lie not one to 
another, seeing that ye put off the old man with his 
deeds, and put on the new man, who is being renewed 
unto knowledge after the image of him who created 
him.” 

The noun translated “ creation ” and the verbal forms 
translated “ created ” are always used in the New Testa- 
ment, with one possible exception, 1 Pet. 2 : 13, to signify 
an originating divine action, or the result of such an 
action; and the result of that action is something which 
did not exist before. It is not an old germ developed, 
but a new kind of being or life. When the water was 
changed into wine, there was a new creation ; the old 
element passed away; it became new. So the old man 
does not cease to live, but his life becomes a new and 
richer and sweeter life ; with the change in his spirit all 
the works and ways of God appear to be changed. 

4. Those that speak of the beginning of Christian life 
under the figure of a divine calling or drawing unto 
Christ or into light: John 6: 44; 1 Cor. 1 : 24; (cf. John 
12:32; 5:25-29; 11:43; Rom. 8:28, 30; 1 Pet. 2:9; 


3°4 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Eph. 5:8; Acts 26: 18; i John 2:9, 10). The calling 
referred to appears to be what is meant by effectual call- 
ing : it certainly means a call that is heard and answered ; 
and the light is that which reveals Jesus Christ in his 
divine loveliness. 

Remark. The work of the Holy Spirit in originating 
Christian life does not conflict with the freedom of the 
human will, does not violate the laws or abridge the 
liberty of the soul, any more than did the action by 
which the soul was brought into existence. The work of 
the Spirit is sub-conscious, and therefore cannot be re- 
sisted by the will of man. But the effects of that work 
may be respected or resisted ; the feelings or convictions 
which are supported by his action may be resisted. If it 
were a compulsory movement on the soul it would prob- 
ably have been expressed by some other term than 
“ call.” Luke, indeed, affirms that “ the Lord opened 
the heart of Lydia to attend to the things spoken by 
Paul”: Acts 16:14; and this language suggests some 
influence of the Spirit of God which predisposed her to 
welcome the gospel. But we are not able to define its 
character more exactly. It was nothing which compelled 
belief ; it tended to produce a candid, spiritual, receptive 
temper which responded to the Apostle’s message with 
faith in Christ. It is, however, to be noted that Lydia 
was one that worshipped God before hearing the truth 
from Paul, and therefore the work of the Spirit may 
have been sanctifying rather than regenerating. 

IV. Relation of Men to the Beginning of their 
Christian Life 

This cannot be fully explained ; for no man who 
is a Christian can be sure as to all that preceded 
and accompanied this change in his spiritual condition. 
Yet observation, experience, reason, and the Word of God 
suggest a few things which commonly precede this great 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 305 

event. It may be said that, with the exception of those 
who are imbecile or die in infancy, very few, compara- 
tively, begin a Christian life, save those — 

1. Who have some knowledge of the gospel. This 
may be inferred in a general way from the great commis- 
sion: Matt. 28: 19; Mark 16: 15, 16, from the language 
of Paul: Rom. 10: 17, 18, and from the history of man- 
kind. We do not say that no man has been regenerated 
without hearing the gospel ; but there is reason to look 
upon the state of the heathen as deplorable. 

2. Who give earnest heed to the gospel. God does 
not often impart the new life to a careless soul, — to one 
who pays no serious attention to the truth. It may be 
only for a short time; but generally, if not always, the 
unrenewed man takes hold of the word seriously before 
the decisive change. 

3. Who are fully convinced of their own guilt: Acts 
2 : 37. It is true, that many who are converted at the 
present day seem to have but a faint sense of personal 
guilt before the change ; but they have some sense of it, 
and they have no doubt whatever of their actual sinful- 
ness. In former times, a deeper conviction of sin seems 
to have generally preceded a change of heart. 

4. Who are truly anxious to he saved: Acts 2:37; 

16:30. “ To be saved,” we mean, from eternal death, 

from the penalty of sin, and perhaps from sin itself, as 
involving that penalty. Beyond this, the carnal heart 
does not go. It has no desire for God and holiness in 
themselves, and no hatred of sin as such. The con- 
science, indeed, condemns sin; but the heart loves it. 
Self cherishes self, and refuses to God his place. Men 
sometimes think they hate sin as sin, before conversion; 
but they are surely mistaken. Certain forms of sin 
shock their sensibilities; but mere sin, as against God 
and right, they do not hate. For to hate sin is to love 
righteousness. 


306 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

5. Who feel their need of help, in order to he saved. 
One who believes that he can do all that must be done to 
deliver himself from sin, and render himself acceptable 
to God, is not likely, while cherishing that belief, to be 
renewed by the Spirit of God. Men are commonly made 
to feel their need of divine help, before it is granted. 
Sometimes they are led to the brink of despair, in their 
efforts to make themselves right, before the grace of 
God enters their hearts. 

( 1 ) Commenting on Matt. 9 : 20, ff. Maclaren says 
that 

“ faith precedes love, and the predominant motive impelling 
to faith at first is distinctly self-regard. That is all as 
it should be. The most purely self-absorbed wish to escape 
from the most rudely pictured hell is often the beginning of 
a true trust in Christ, which, in due time, will be elevated into 
perfect consecration. Some of our modern teachers who are 
shocked at Christianity, because it lays the foundation of the 
most self-denying morality in such ‘ selfishness/ would be 
none the worse for going to school to this story, and learning 
from it how a desire, no nobler than to get rid of a painful 
disease, started a process which turned a life into a peaceful, 
thankful surrender of the cured self to the love and service 
of the mighty Healer.” Maclaren here uses the word 
“ faith ” to denote the merest act of trust in a person, viz., 
Christ. Can such trust in a person exist without some tinc- 
ture of love? See (2) infra. 

(2) By suggesting that some knowledge of the 
gospel commonly precedes the beginning of spiritual life, 
we do not mean to intimate that none of the heathen 
possess such life ; much less do we mean to intimate that 
none of the Israelites before the time of Christ possessed 
it. We rather believe that much of the gospel was 
known to the Israelites; in particular that the holiness 
of God and their own sinfulness, together with God’s 
mercy through sacrifice, were apprehended by some of 


CHRISTIAN LIFE! BEGINNING AND GROWTH 307 

them, so that it was possible for them to be saved on 
gospel principles. The same was probably true of many 
Gentiles in the time of Christ. They were not ignorant 
of all religious truth. Indeed, the words of Paul in his 
letter to the Romans: io: 17, 18, show that he conceived 
the language of the nineteenth Psalm, which describes 
the works of nature as glorifying God everywhere, to be 
true for the peoples of his own age. The same fact he 
had previously affirmed in his letter: Rom. 1:19, 20, 
though without expressing his belief that men had availed 
themselves to any saving extent of the knowledge put 
within their reach. He was, however, certain that they 
did not perish for lack of knowledge. 

(3) In attempting to mention some of the antecedents 
to the beginning of spiritual life in sinners, they have not 
been supposed to experience or to do anything which ful- 
fills the command to repent or believe or seek forgiveness, 
anything which places God under obligation to create 
them anew in Christ Jesus. Indeed, nothing which an 
impenitent man does establishes a claim to the mercy of 
God. His thinking, his anxiety, his sense of need, his 
prayer, all spring from a heart unreconciled to God (cf. 
Turretin I. 318 sq.). The most a sinful heart ever does 
is to give up hope in itself and cry, “ Lord, save, or I 
perish.” Only this, before the new life begins in child- 
like submission and trust, fully accepting the help of 
Christ. 

But with what action of the soul does Christian life 
begin ? The question is a very difficult one to answer, 
because the inward life is a unit, all phases of it being 
joined by the closest ties. The Christian graces grow in 
a cluster, most of them existing in germ from the first. 
Yet there may be detected a possible order of dependence 
in nature, if not of succession in time. We therefore set 
them down with some hesitation as follows : — 

1. Repentance (fieravoia) which is an inward turn- 


3°8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

ing from self to Christ, from the way of sin to the way of 
righteousness, a radical change of mind from a moral 
and religious point of view. The word is never em- 
ployed in the New Testament to express mere regret or 
remorse, without any change of moral purpose or aim. 1 
This inward turning is the beginning of the new life 
considered as a unit. 

2. Faith , which, in the case of one who knows the 
gospel, is genuine trust in Christ as his personal Saviour. 
According to Dr. W. R. Williams, “ faith in Christ is 
the very first outgush of the new-found spiritual life.” 
It is logical evidence of the beginning of this life, for it 
is an expression of it. 2 It is not reflexive; it does not 
lean upon itself, whether weak or strong; it is the trust 
of the soul, conscious of its own sinfulness, in Jesus 
Christ, the all-sufficient Saviour. “ We are indebted,” 
writes Dr. Gordon, “ to John Henry Newman for the 
saying that sincere faith is utterly unconscious of itself, 
like the atmosphere, the transparent medium for seeing 
Christ, and only visible when clouded with our feelings 
and emotions.” Faith is, primarily, receptive of good. 

3. Love , which is a supreme preference of soul for God 
in Christ as the supreme Good, together with a voluntary 
good will to all men. “ The glory of God is the end of 
the new creature ; self, the end of the old man.” 3 Love is 
communicative, and a higher grace than faith ; for “ it 
is more blessed to give than to receive.” In the thirteenth 
chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians Paul asserts 
unequivocally the primacy of love. 4 The words ayairdw 
and aydirr) are generally used in the New Testament to 

1 Trench’s “Synonyms of the New Testament,” and Thayer’s 
“ Lexicon of the Greek New Testament,” sub voce , per avoid, and 
/act a in composition. 

2 See Gordon (Dr. A. J.) “The First Thing in the World.” 

3 Charnock. 

* See Drummond’s “ The Greatest Thing in the World.” 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 309 

denote Christian love. Especially are love to God and 
love to enemies expressed by these words rather than 
by (fnXeco and its derivatives. 1 

4. Hope , which expects further good and is logically 
dependent on faith. It held a prominent place in the 
experience of the Apostles. It lays hold of eternal 
things: Rom. 8:24, 25; 2 Cor. 4: 17, 18; 1 Pet. 1:3, 
12. People sometimes have faith with little hope. 

5. Spiritual discernment. The great spiritual activities 
of the soul, faith, love, and spiritual discernment, seem to 
be interdependent. True knowledge of God begins with 
trust and good will. Feeling depends upon vision, but 
it is also true that vision depends, in many cases, upon 
feeling. It is as difficult to know one whom you do not 
love as it is to love one whom you do not know. 


V. Relation of the Gospel to the Beginning of 
Christian Life 

This topic has been briefly noticed in speaking of 
Christ’s relation to the beginning of the new life. But 
it is one of some difficulty and deserves further con- 
sideration. For there have been theologians who insisted 
that a clear presentation of truth is the only thing neces- 
sary to bring sinners to repentance and union with God. 
Men are sinners because they are in mental darkness. 
Their views of God are dim or erroneous, therefore they 
do not love him. Their views of the way of life are 
vague and misty, therefore they feel no interest in the 
work of Christ. Men will turn into the right way as 
soon as they see it. On the other hand, there have been 
theologians who insisted that sinners have knowledge 
enough to be saved, but they do not relish what it re- 
quires. They see the truth, but refuse to obey it. All 

1 See Trench’s “ Synonyms ” and Cremer’s “ Dictionary of 
Theological Terms in New Testament Greek,” sub vocibus. 


310 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the light of heaven would not bring them to God without 
a radical change of disposition, without a direct work of 
the Spirit on the springs of love in their souls, changing 
their moral quality. This view was advocated by Dr. 
Asa Burton, and was called the “ Taste Scheme ” ; it 
was opposed by Dr. Emmons, whose theology was called 
the “ Exercise Scheme.’’ Our resort must be to the 
word of God for instruction. 

Christian truth, or the gospel, is spoken of as the 
means employed to effect this change, the beginning of 
spiritual life in sinners: e. g., in i Pet. 1:23; 1 Cor. 4 : 15. 
These passages will repay study. 

1. There are many other expressions of the New Tes- 
tament which show the connection of religious truth, if 
not of the full truth of the gospel, with the beginning of 
spiritual life in men: e. g., Matt. 28: 19; Rom. 10: 17; 
Matt. 13:37, 38; Luke 8: 11. The apostles of Christ 
were commanded by him to make disciples of the nations, 
evidently by preaching to them his gospel. The neces- 
sity of this preaching in order that men may have faith 
in Christ, is affirmed by Paul. And the relation of this 
truth to a life of faith is taught by Jesus in his parable 
of the good seed and the tares. Religious truth is, there- 
fore, in some sense a means of the new birth, and, in a 
sense very obvious and intelligible, a means of faith, love, 
hope, and every other movement of Christian life. 

2. If it be asked, How does truth tend to move the un- 
renewed soul towards God? it may be answered in the 
words of Dr. Northrup: 

“ There are four legitimate motives or principles of action 
to which the Holy Spirit appeals to persuade men to seek 
salvation, viz., rational self-interest, the feeling of obligation, 
the natural principle of gratitude, and aspiration for some- 
thing higher and better than they are or have.” 

These appeals are fitted to move the soul to seek for 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 311 

peace with God, but they will not prevail, except as the 
Spirit prepares the soul to welcome and follow them. 
For in the last analysis truth is not life, though it may 
represent and suggest life. Hence as life comes from 
life, motion from motion, energy from energy, love from 
love, we cannot think that truth is the deepest source of 
Christian life. It is rather a means and a help to life. 
Nay, it is indispensable to conscious life and fellowship 
with God. 

3. But how are the work of the Spirit, the influence 
of truth, and the action of the sinner related to each 
other at the turning point, the beginning of Christian 
life? A change is to be effected, without compulsion, in 
the aim and affection of a free personality. A new direc- 
tion and movement of soul he must voluntarily appro- 
priate. This he will not take the lead in doing because 
of his reigning self-love. 

(1) But both the Spirit of God and the influence of 
truth concur in moving him to repent and cast himself on 
the mercy of Christ. Their influence conditions his ac- 
tion. Under their influence his new life begins. Hence 
prayer for the work of the Holy Spirit should always be 
joined with preaching the gospel to sinful men. 

(2) If a further question is raised, Do the Holy Spirit 
and the truth act upon the soul in different ways, but 
each directly and for the same moral end, or does the 
Holy Spirit act upon the truth and only reach the soul 
through the truth ? we regard the former account of their 
co-agency as much more probable than the latter, for it 
is impossible to conceive of truth as charged with any 
other power than that which it has as truth. And even 
if it were charged with an energy distinct from its own, 
that energy would act in its distinctive way on the soul ; 
it could not change the nature of truth, or give it more 
than its own efficiency. 

(3) The new birth includes the first conscious work- 


3 12 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


in g of the new life; it has a conscious as well as an 
unconscious side, both of which are necessary to its com- 
pletion. The principle of life, the new disposition, is 
given by the Holy Spirit ; but the action of this spiritual 
life, as required by God, and experienced by us, is abso- 
lutely dependent on truth. There can be no holy desire, 
affection, or volition, except in view of truth. The con- 
scious image of Christ in the soul is produced by the 
Word of God. The Holy Spirit makes the soul sensitive 
to the light of truth at the very instant when that light, 
pouring in upon it, originates as a means the visible 
image of Christ, — the new life of faith and love. It is 
the action of the spirit which prepares the plate; it is 
the influence of truth which brings out the picture. The 
soul must be made susceptible, or the light of truth falls 
upon it in vain. 

VI. Relation of Baptism to the Beginning of 
Christian Life 

This relation is not, like those already named, origi- 
native, mystical, or instrumental, but rather declarative, 
confessional, and probative. It is only a solemn con- 
fession of faith in Christ, and, therefore, of having al- 
ready come into possession of the new life. Yet a large 
part of Christendom believes that the beginning of Chris- 
tian life depends upon the sacrament of baptism. 

i. Thus, the Council of Trent, Sessio VII., decreed 
that 

“ the most holy sacraments of the church are the means by 
which all true righteousness begins, or when begun is • in- 
creased, or when lost is restored.” An anathema is also 
pronounced on every one who affirms that “ the sacraments 
of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify, 
or do not confer this very grace on those who present no 
obstacle, as though they were merely external signs of the 
grace or righteousness received by faith,” etc.; so, too, an 


CHRISTIAN LIFE! BEGINNING AND GROWTH 313 

anathema is pronounced against every one who says that 
“ children, because they do not exercise faith, are not, when 
baptized, to be reckoned among the faithful,” etc. 

2. According to the Augsburg Confession, the Luther- 
ans 

*' teach concerning baptism, that it is necessary to salva- 
tion, and that by baptism the grace of God is offered: also 
that children should be baptized, since, offered to God by 
baptism, they are received into his grace. They condemn 
the Anabaptists, who disapprove the baptism of children and 
affirm that children are saved without baptism.” 

3. According to the Liturgy of the Church of England 
for the public baptism of infants, the minister is required 
to say, after baptizing the infant, 

“ We receive this child into the congregation of Christ’s 
flock ” ; and still further, “ Seeing now, dearly beloved 
brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the 
body of Christ’s church, let us give thanks unto Almighty 
God for these benefits,” etc. 

It is not, therefore, surprising that the sacramental wing 
of the Church of England is greatly assisted by the 
Liturgy. For the language of the Liturgy plainly teaches 
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and gives to those 
who hold this doctrine to be true a great advantage over 
all others in that communion. 

Before examining the words of Scripture which are 
supposed to teach this doctrine, it will be proper to' take 
account of several important facts, namely : — 

(1) In the Apostolic age, baptism was regularly pre- 
ceded by repentance, faith, etc.: See Acts 2:37-41, 
“ Then they that welcomed his word were baptized ” ; 
8:12; 16:14, 31-33; 18:8; (cf. Matt. 28:19; Mark 
16:6; Matt. 3:1-11; Mark 1:4, 5 ; Luke 3 : 8.) 1 

1 For the import of the expression, “works [or fruits] meet 
for repentance,” see Acts 26:20, and compare Luke 23:41, and 
2 Macc. 4 : 25. 


3^4 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

(2) Persons were sometimes filled with the Holy 
Spirit, — that is, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and so en- 
dowed with miraculous gifts before baptism : Acts 
10: 44-48, “ Can any one forbid water that these should 
be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as 
we ? ” These gifts, as a rule, presuppose regeneration, 
and furnish credible evidence of it; hence they were said 
to justify baptism. 

(3) Baptism is described by the Apostle Peter, as 
“the answer of a good conscience ” : 1 Peter 3:21, 
“ baptism = the answer (requirement, inquiry, or re- 
quest) of a good conscience toward God ” ; but a good 
conscience implies obedience to God: 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 
3 : 9 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:3); Heb. 9 : 14 ; 10 : 22 ; 13 : 18. 

(4) Administering the ordinance of baptism was 
esteemed by Paul subordinate to the work of preaching: 
1 Cor. 1 : 17, 18, 21, “ Christ did not send me to baptize, 
but to preach the gospel .... For the word of the cross 
is ... to us who are being saved . . . the power of God.” 
This is very evident, not only from the language found in 
the verses here cited, but also from the way in which he 
generally refers to the work of preaching. 

(5) This Apostle claims to have begotten the Cor- 
inthian Christians by the gospel ; while he disclaims 
baptizing them, except in a few instances. See 1 Cor. 
4: 15, “ For in Christ Jesus, through the gospel, it was 
I that begot you ”: 1 : 14, 15.. Is not this decisive? 

With these facts before us, we turn to the passages 
which have been supposed to teach the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration, namely: John 3:5, “Unless one be 
born of water and (the) Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
Kingdom of God ” ; Titus, 3:5; Eph. 5:26; and 1 Peter 
3:21; Acts 22: 16. On the first three of these texts, 
we remark : — 

a. If they refer at all to the rite of baptism, they do 
not prove the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; for it 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 315 

may be truly said that baptism is the symbol of regenera- 
tion, — the prescribed expression for it; and no true 
Christian of the first age could have thought of any sub- 
stitute for it in acknowledging the change which had 
been wrought in his soul. The inward change and the 
outward expression of it must have been very closely 
united in the minds of Christians. Each would suggest 
the other; and forms of speech would be transferred 
from one to the other. 

Hence Christ, in his discourse with Nicodemus, vir- 
tually said, “To be a true member of my earthly king- 
dom, you must be born again, ritually and spiritually; 
you must submit to the rite of baptism, and experience a 
renovation of heart by the Spirit of God ; you must not 
only confess me openly in the prescribed way, which you 
are unwilling to do, but must also be the subject of a 
great spiritual change effected by the power of God ” 
(cf. Rom. 10:9 for the same order of thought, the rhe- 
torical instead of the logical order). 

The only other interpretation which seems probable is 
this, that no one without a birth from water = forgive- 
ness of sins, and from spirit = implanting a new spiritual 
life, can enter the Kingdom of God. For cleansing is but 
another name for forgiveness. 1 

b. In the Epistles to Titus and the Ephesians, Paul 
blends the inward change with the outward expression 
of it, even as he does also in Rom. 6:2 sq., and Col. 
2:11, 12. The two he regarded as practically insepa- 
rable: true belief in Christ involved the prescribed ex- 
pression of it, and vice versa. 

c. If this be the correct interpretation of these pas- 
sages, they agree in sense with 1 Peter 3: 21, and Acts 
22 : 16. Professor Charles Hodge remarks, that, “ when 
any declaration or service is the appointed means of pro- 

1 Cf. Acts 22 : 16 and 2 : 38 with the Appendix to the Gospel 
of John in “ An American Commentary on the New Testament.” 


316 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

fessing faith and obedience, making such declaration, or 
performing such service, is said to secure the blessings 
which are promised to the faith thereby professed.” 1 
To understand such language, it is only necessary to bear 
in mind, that, in the apostolic age, it was, as a rule, in- 
dispensable. (a) To be baptized in the name of Christ, 
in order to confess him before men; and (b) To con- 
fess him before men, in order to be saved by him. See 
Matt, io : 32, 33 ; 12:30; Luke 14 : 26, 27, 33. 

By the limiting clause, “ as a rule,” we design to ex- 
cept such cases as follow : a. those who had not bodily 
health or strength to be baptized ; b. those who could 
not find a suitable person to baptize them ; c. those who 
were prevented from receiving it by their parents ; d. 
those who were prevented solely by a distrust of their 
own piety. Baptism has never been a prerequisite to sal- 
vation, except as obedience to the known will of Christ 
is such a prerequisite. 

It is not certain that either of the first three passages 
refers to baptism. Neither of them contains the word 
which commonly denotes this rite. It may be that the 
work of the Spirit in regeneration is characterized figur- 
atively as a cleansing, purifying work by the words 
“water,” “bath,” and “bath of water.” This is a very 
obvious and natural interpretation of the passage in 
Titus; and scarcely less so of the words of Christ in 
John, and of Paul in his letter to the Ephesians. 

1 “ Way of Life,” p. 267. 



CHAPTER II 


GROWTH OF CHRISTIAN LIFE 


I. Relation of the Father to the Growth of Chris- 
tian Life 



IFE implies growth. It begins in comparative weak- 


1 A ness, but in proper conditions is expected to in- 
crease in compass and vigor and richness. This is evi- 
dently true of spiritual life. The Apostle Peter exhorts 
his readers to “ grow in the grace and knowledge of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 3: 18, and the 
Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “ The Lord 
make you increase and abound in love toward one another 
and toward all”: 1 Thess. 3:12. But what relation 
have the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Gospel, and Chris- 
tians themselves to the growth of the new spiritual life? 
We are first to consider that of the Father, as suggested 
by the Scriptures. 

1. The Father is represented as the One who justifies 
believers in Christ. This is evident from the language 
of Paul in Rom. 1 : 17 ; 3:21, 30, “ being justified freely 
by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus . . . that he may be . . . the justifier of him who be- 
lieves in Jesus”: 4:5; 8:30, 33; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; 
Gal. 3 : 8. Moreover it is the grace of God that leads him 
to justify any. Even faith in Christ has no saving 
virtue in itself. As an affection or act of the soul it is 
inferior to love, and neither of them is half as steady or 
strong as it ought to be. Hence the Apostle asserts with 
great clearness of terms that justification is an act of free 
grace on the part of God. I11 himself, apart from Christ, 


318 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

even a believer has no claim to it : Rom. 3 : 24. See also 
passages referred to above and Rom. 4:4, 16; 5:15; 
11:5, 6 ; Eph. 1:6, 7 ; (cf. John 3 : 16 ; 1 John 4 : 9, 10, 
19 ; Acts 20:24; 1 Cor. 1:4; Eph. 2:7, 8 ; 2 Thess. 
2:16; Titus 2 : 14). 

This view of* the case is yet more obvious, when the 
act of God is simply denominated forgiveness of sins. 
For no one would think of himself as having a right to 
forgiveness; much less would any one who had a just 
conception of the dreadful guilt of sin dream that any 
thing in his own action could entitle him to pardon. 

* Forgiveness, in order to be forgiveness, must be un- 
merited. Yet, from another point of view, it is an act of 
righteousness : 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he 
is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” But, in this pas- 
sage, the faithfulness referred to is fidelity on the part 
of God to his promise ; and righteousness is that attribute 
of God which insures such fidelity. In a certain sense, 
therefore, the penitent believer has a title or claim to the 
mercy of God, but not “ in and of himself ” ; his title is 
in Christ, to whom he is joined by faith; and this brings 
us to another section. 

2. The Father does this by accepting believers in 
Christ as his adopted children , no longer under law but 
under grace. The verb which is translated, to justify, 
occurs thirty-eight times in the New Testament, and 
mostly in books written by Paul, or by his companion, 
Luke. Thus Matt. 11:19; 12:37; Luke 7:29, 35; 
10: 29; 16:15; 18: 14; Acts 13 : 39, twice; Rom. 2:13; 
3:4,20,24,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,6; 6:7; 8:30,33; 
1 Cor. 4:4; 6:11; Gal. 2:16, 17, four times; 3:8, 
11, 24; 5:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 3:7; James 2:21, 
24, 25. 

3. An impartial study of these passages, with others in 
the Old Testament where the corresponding Hebrew 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 319 

word occurs, will convince any one that it is properly a 
legal term, and signifies to pronounce one right or right- 
eous in the forum of grace , being removed from the 
forum of law: Ex. 23:7; Deut. 25 : 1 ; 2 Sam. 15:4; 1 
Kings 8:32; Isa. 5 : 23 ; 43 : 9. It never signifies to 
make a person righteous, but always, for one reason or 
another, to declare him righteous. 

Note, first , that it is used of the decisions of an earthly 
tribunal : Isa. 5:23; Deut. 25:1; and also of the decisions 
of the Supreme Ruler at the last day : Matt. 12 : 37 ; Rom. 
2: 13, 16. Secondly, that it is used as the opposite of 
condemnation: 1 Kings 8:32; Prov. 17:15; Matt. 12: 
37 ; Rom. 8 : 33, 34. And, thirdly, that it is used as vir- 
tually equivalent to the act of forgiving sins, or of not 
imputing iniquity : Acts 13:38, 39 ; Rom. 4 : 6-8. 

4. Pardon, or forgiveness, and justification are separa- 
ble in thought. Pardon assumes that there is guilt ; j us- 
tification says that there is none. But, in the case of 
sinners who believe in Christ, the two are but different 
sides of the same act. For God forgives no one whom 
he does not at the same instant justify; and he justifies 
no one whom he does not at the same instant forgive. 
Hence the sacred writers use the terms as if they were 
equivalent; or, since one involves the other, they do not 
deem it necessary to mention them both in the same con- 
nection : See Mark 1:4; Luke 1 : 77 ; 3:3; 24 : 47 ; 
Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 26:18; Eph. 1:7; Col. 
1:14; and Luke 18: 14; Rom. 3: 24; 5:9; 8:30; Titus 
3 - 7 - 

In the order of nature, pardon precedes justification; 
for a sinner cannot be pronounced righteous before the 
law until his sins have been forgiven; yet in time and 
effect they are inseparable and equal, though not the 
same. 

It may be added, — 

(1) That justification does not set one free from the 


3 2 ° 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


law of God as a rule of duty: Rom. 6: i, 14, 20; 7: 5, 
7, 9; Gal. 3: 19, though it does set him free from it, as a 
rule by which he is to be finally acquitted or condemned. 
Antinomianism is a dangerous perversion of the doctrine 
of grace. 

(2) That justification does not secure for one the 
same treatment in all respects which he would receive if 
he were free from personal sin. Bishop Devenant re- 
marks, “ God absolves the justified from all punishment 
that is retributive ; but not from all that is chastening and 
medicinal.” 

(3) That pardon and justification are complete from 
the first moment of their existence. God does not for- 
give a part of the believer’s sins, or pronounce him par- 
tially just before the law. He forgives all, and declares 
the pardoned sinner righteous, or free from condemna- 
tion. 

(4) Yet this statement is by no means inconsistent 
with the theory of continuous pardon and justification. 
The relation of the believer to Christ is ever dependent 
on a vital union between the two: 1 Peter 1:5, “by the 
power of God guarded through faith ” ; and the bless- 
ing of justification may well be conceived of as being 
perpetually renewed. Hence David could pray for the 
pardon of his great sin: Ps. 51:1. Hence, likewise, all 
Christians ought daily to pray for the forgiveness of their 
sins : Matt. 6: 12. 1 

5. The Father accepts or justifies believers in Christ 
on account of what Christ has done and suffered in 
their behalf. His work is the meritorious cause of their 
justification, as may be learned, — 

(1) From the direct testimony of God's words: for 
example, in Rom. 3:24, 25; 5:9, 18, 19; Eph. 1:7; 
Gal. 3: 13; 1 John 2:2, 12. 

1 Preuss (E.), “Die Rechtfertigung des Siinders vor Gott,” 
— “ Sechster Abschnitt: Bestiindige Vergebung,” s. 119. 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 32 I 

The first of these passages describes men as justified 
“ through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ” ; and 
this redemption is said to be in him, because the right- 
eousness of God has been illustrated by his propitiatory 
death. In the second, men are represented as having 
been “ justified in the blood of Jesus/’ who had died 
for them while they were sinners. In the third, it is 
said that “ as through one trespass it came upon all men 
unto condemnation, so also through one righteous act 
it came upon all men unto justification of life.” In Eph. 

1 : 7, the Apostle speaks of Christ as the one “ in whom 
we have the redemption through his blood, — the remis- 
sion of our trespasses”; and in Gal. 3: 13, he declares 
that “ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
having become a curse for us.” It woud be difficult to 
express the fact of justification through the vicarious 
death of Christ in plainer language than this. 

(2) From the indirect testimony of God’s Word : 
Matt. 26 : 28, “ This is my blood of the covenant, which 
is shed for many, unto remission of sins ” ; 1 Cor. 1 : 30 ; 
15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:22; 

1 Peter 2 : 24 (cf. Luke 24 : 47 ; Acts 2 : 38). 

The whole of our argument for the vicarious effi- 
cacy of the atonement may be referred to in support of 
the statement which we have now made in respect to the 
ground of justification. A review of that topic will 
afford ample evidence of the proposition above expressed. 

6. The Father justifies men on condition of their 
union with Christ by faith. For unbelief in Christ, as 
the Saviour of sinners, or a refusal to accept of pardon 
on account of his self-sacrifice, would be an insuperable 
obstacle to a sinner’s justification; and, therefore, faith ' 
or trust in him is very properly said to be a condition of 
justification. Some have preferred to call it a prerequisite 
rather than a condition ; but we see no difference between 
the two words in this connection. Without faith in Christ 


3 22 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


crucified, no one can receive forgiveness of sins and an 
inheritance with the saints in light. This is the plain 
meaning of the inspired writers : Mark 16 : 16 ; John 3 136, 
“ He that believes on the Son has eternal life ; but he that 
disbelieves the Son shall not see life ” ; also John 6 : 40 ; 
Acts 16:31; Gal. 2: 16; 3:22; 1 John 5 : 10, 12 ; Rom. 
3:22, 28; 4:5, 13, 14; 5:1; Gal. 3:6 sq. 26; Eph. 
2:8; 3:17; Phil. 3:9; Heb. 11:6. 

(1) From the testimony of the Word of God, there- 
fore, it appears that trust in Christ, rather than sorrow 
for sin, or love to God, is the proper condition of jus- 
tification; not as working, but as trusting, are men jus- 
tified or forgiven. Hence faith does not justify as being 
in itself righteousness or obedience, or even a germ of 
righteousness, or an equivalent for obedience ; but as a 
total renunciation of all claim to personal righteousness, 
and a sole reliance upon Christ for acceptance with God. 
“ The glory of faith is, that its utter emptiness opens to 
receive consummate good.” Christian faith is the act of a 
sinner who sees himself to be a sinner, and utterly re- 
nounces all trust in his own works, whether internal or 
external, — all confidence in his own love, or trust, or 
humility, and casts himself without reserve on the mercy 
of God in Christ. It is, therefore, quite as truly distrust 
of self, as it is trust in Christ. It cannot live without 
doing good ; but it can do no good in which it has any 
confidence as satisfying the law of a holy God. 

(2) Yet it is certainly an attitude of the human spirit 
well pleasing to God, inasmuch as it is honest to itself 
and to God, inasmuch as it admits the perfection of God’s 
law and is grateful for his grace by the help of which it 
will be at last delivered from sin. And therefore, as an 
indispensable condition of acceptance with God, the 
sacred writers speak of it as being — of course in a sec- 
ondary sense — the source (eV with the genitive), or 
the instrument (with the dative of the noun), or the 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 323 

means of justification (Sta with the genitive) : Rom. 
1:1 7; 3-3o; 4:16; 5: 1 i 9: 30, 32; 10:6; 14: 23; Gal. 
2 : 16 ; 3- 5> 7 > 8, 9, 11, 24; 5:5; Acts 3:16; 15: 19; 
26:18; Rom. 3:28; 5:2; 11 : 20; .2 Cor. 1 : 24; Rom. 
3 : 22 , 25, 30, 31 ; 2 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 2 : 16, 20. 

(3) The more decisively we emphasize the spiritual 
union and fellowship of believers with Christ, the more 
reasonable will the doctrines of grace, as taught by the 
New Testament, appear. The spiritual union of the be- 
liever with Christ is such, that he has true fellowship 
with the work of Christ. He endorses and accepts it, so 
far as possible, as his own. He acknowledges the law of 
God to be holy, and its penalty just. In dying to sin, 
he dies with Christ ; entering into the meaning and neces- 
sity of the Saviour’s death, and feeling that, if it were pos- 
sible, he would gladly suffer in the same way, and for 
the same great end, — the honor of God, and the good of 
men. Hence, we say that the imputation of Christ’s 
work is mediate, not immediate, — to the believer as 
such, and not to the elect as such. A moral union is pre- 
requisite to the legal one. 

The logical order of the process of redemption seems 
to be this : a. Election by God, the Father ; b. Regenera- 
tion by the Holy Spirit ; c. Union with Christ by faith ; 
d. Justification on account of Christ’s self-sacrifice. 

7. But what has justification by God, the Father, to do 
with growth in grace or sanctification? Almost every- 
thing, if one may judge by the writings of Paul, of 
Augustine, of Luther, of Bunyan, or of Spurgeon. 
“ Therefore, being justified by faith, let us have peace 
with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” “ And not 
only so, but also rejoicing in God, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the 
reconciliation.” “ And if children, also heirs ; heirs of 
God, and joint heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer 
with him, that we may also be glorified with him.” “And 


324 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

whom he justified them he also glorified.” “ If God is 
for us, who is against us? He who spared not his own 
Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also 
with him freely give us all things ? ” “ God is he that 

justifies, who is he that condemns?” Rom. 5:1, 1 1 ; 
8: 17, 30, 31,32. 

“ Why not live upon Christ always, and especially as he 
standeth the mediator between God and the soul, defending 
thee with the merit of his blood, and covering thee with his 
infinite righteousness? . . . Can there be any greater comfort 
ministered to thee than to know thy person stands just before 
God — just and justified from all things that would swallow 
thee up? Is peace with God and assurance of heaven of so 
little respect with thee that thou slightest the very foundation 
thereof, even faith in the blood and righteousness of 
Christ? ” 1 

Most intelligible is the fact that a consciousness of 
pardon, of adoption, and of gracious help in escaping 
from the bondage of sin, must be a wellspring of courage 
and devotion to every believer in Christ, and especially 
to every believer who has had deep experience of the 
guilt and plague of sin. It must stimulate him greatly 
to put off the old man with his deeds, and to put on the 
new man, who is being renewed after the image of his 
Creator and Father. Justification springs from the holy 
fatherhood of God, and puts the believer into the at- 
mosphere and influence of his blessed family. 

Paul felt that only by a monstrous perversion of this 
truth could it be used to excuse one’s self in sin. “ What 
then? Are we to sin because we are not under law, but 
under grace? Far be it! . . . Thanks be to God, that ye 
were servants of sin, but obeyed from the heart that form 
of teaching unto which ye were delivered ; and being 
made free from sin, became servants of righteousness. . . . 

1 “ Of Justification by an Imputed Righteousness,” by John 
Bunyan. 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 325 

But now, being made free from sin, and become servants 
of God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the 
end eternal life : Rom. 6: 15, 17, 22. It seems to be 
unnatural and incredible that any man who is united with 
Christ by faith, should not look with the utmost horror 
upon his own sins which brought upon Christ such awful 
suffering, or that he should continue to do that which is 
so utterly offensive to his gracious Father in heaven. 
Are not gratitude and love stronger motives to well- 
doing than fear? 

8. The relation of the Father to the growth of believers 
in their Christian life may also be seen in his providence. 
That this tends to increase the purity and fruitfulness of 
Christian life may be inferred: 

(1) From the language of God's Word. This may be 
seen a. In respect to prosperity: Ps. 145:7; Rom. 
2:4, “Not knowing that the goodness of God is leading 
thee to repentance.” b. In respect to adversity: Rom. 
5 : 3 sq., “ Knowing that affliction works patience,” etc. ; 
1 Cor. 11:32; Heb. 12:6; 2 Cor. 4:17. c. In respect 
to all events : Rom. 8 : 28, “ All things work together for 
good to those who love God ” ; 2 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 5:20; 
1 Cor. 3 : 21, 22. 

Query: Does the 7 ravra of Rom. 8:28 include the 
sin of those who love God? We do not find it easy 
to reply. Steudel 1 remarks that, 

“ Sin — in case we do not give ourselves up to its power 
— often impels the conscience to hold the truth before us 
more distinctly and sharply than it would otherwise have 
done. A close observer of himself will scarcely be able 
to say that he has not been greatly benefited by a deeper 
knowledge of his own heart, and by a more thorough use 
of Christian truth at his command, even when these were 
occasioned by a sin which revealed to him the depravity 
of his moral nature.” 


1 In the Chr. Rev. XXVI., p. 241. 


326 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

(2) From experience and observation . Such is the 
union of soul and body in man, that the latter often solic- 
its the former to sin ; but its power to do this may be 
greatly weakened; for example, by disease. Hence the 
Christian may be made to experience want or weakness, 
for the purpose of fitting him to welcome the truth as a 
little child, with humility and trust in Christ. So, too, 
prosperity may increase his thankfulness and power to 
benefit others. When it will do this, God is able and 
willing to bestow it. 

And no one can be certain how great is the influence 
of nature upon his spiritual moods and susceptibilities. 
The stars in their courses fight against evil. Earthquake 
and tempest reveal to man his weakness, and fill his 
spirit with awe. The clouds and the winds speak to 
him impressively. The changes of life often touch his 
soul with mysterious power. It is not uncharitable to 
suppose that most men fail to appreciate the subtle and 
gracious influence of the Father’s ways in providence, 
especially as tending toward the new life in Christ. Yet 
the question meets us, Does God so direct events as to 
make them promote, in the highest degree, the sanctifica- 
tion of every believer, without limitation through the 
needs of others? Or may that of one be delayed for 
the sake of greater good to others? Non liquet. 

II. Relation of Jesus Christ to Growth in Chris- 
tian Life 

I. This is most intimate and vital. Jesus said to his 
disciples, “ I am the vine ; ye are the branches.” “ I am 
the way and the truth and the life.” “ No one comes 
to the Father, but through me.” “ He that eats my flesh 
and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise 
him up at the last day.” “.He that has seen me has 
seen the Father.” “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye 


CHRISTIAN LIFE! BEGINNING AND GROWTH 327 

shall ask anything of the Father in my name he will give 
it you”: John 15:5; 14 : 6; 6: 54; 14:9; 16:23. “Take 
my yoke upon you and learn of me ; for I am meek and 
lowly in heart ; and ye shall find rest unto your souls ” : 
Matt. 11:29. 

2. Equally clear is the language of Paul in respect to 
the union of believers with Christ. They are in him, and 
he dwells in them. “ Being in Christ ” is one of his 
standing descriptions of Christians. He prays that the 
“ love of the Philippians may abound yet more and more 
in knowledge and all discernment . . . [they] being filled 
with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus 
Christ ”: Phil. 1 : 9, 11. “ For ye died, and your life is 

hid with Christ in God ” : Col. 3:3. “ Let the peace of 

Christ rule in your hearts. . . . Let the word of Christ 
dwell in you richly in all wisdom”: Col. 3:15, 16. 
“ Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” : 
Phil. 2:5. 

‘3. Similar is the teaching of John : “ He that has the 
Son has the life ; he that has not the Son of God has not 
the life.” “ And we are in him that is true, even in his 
Son Jesus Christ.” “ Who is he that overcomes the 
world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of 
God? ” : 1 John 5 : 12, 20, 5. In this connection it should 
not be forgotten that John remembered and recorded the 
words of Jesus which have been quoted above from his 
Gospel. Compare the words of Peter, “ But grow in 
the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ ” : 2 Pet. 3 : 18. 

4. The testimony of Christians is well nigh unanimous, 
that the life and character of Christ, as portrayed in the 
Gospels, make the highest appeal to their spiritual nature, 
and move them most powerfully toward holy action. He 
gives them the clearest view of the Father’s holiness and 
love. In him they have a vision of the true God and, at 
the same time, of the perfect man. In him they perceive 


328 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the point at which the human and the divine may become 
one, that is, in moral aim and temper. 

5. Jesus Christ comes into the lives of his friends by 
means of his words and acts, as recorded in the New 
Testament, especially in the Gospels. They are thus 
enabled to “ think his thoughts after him,” and to dis- 
cover the spirit which animated him through life and in 
death. And, like Paul, they seek in this way “ to know 
him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship 
of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death ” : 
Phil. 3 : 10. It is certain that Christians of ripe expe- 
rience find in the life of Jesus Christ an inexhaustible 
fountain of holy light and impulse. He is the Revealer 
of the Father, the Giver of the Spirit, the Head of the 
Church, the Fulfiller of all righteousness; and by look- 
ing to him Christians are brought into fellowship with 
God and with all who love him. 

III. Relation of the Holy Spirit to the Growth 
of Christian Life in Believers 

Growth in Christian life is but another name for sanc- 
tification. For sanctification, as a process, consists in a 
gradual increase of faith, love, hope, etc., and in a gradual 
decrease of pride, avarice, sensuality, in a word, selfish- 
ness. Probably the best way to secure a decrease of evil 
is to work for an increase of good. As love to God and 
man grows, selfishness sickens and dies. “ Infinite toil 
would not enable you to sweep away a mist; but by as- 
cending a little, you may often look over it altogether ” 
(Arthur Helps). “ The first duty is to attach one’s self ; 
detachment comes afterwards” (Vinet). “Positive 
faith must go before all negative exercises of self-denial 
and mortification. To mortify the flesh in order to vivify 
the spirit, is to reverse the Divine order.” Yet Paul says 
to his Roman brethren, “ If by the Spirit ye put to death 
the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Notice then, 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 329 

1. That divine knowledge is traced to the Holy Spirit 
as its source: i Cor. 2: 13, 14, 15; 1 John 2:20, 27; 
Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:9. In the first of these passages, 
Paul represents the unrenewed man as unable to receive 
the things of God, because they are spiritually under- 
stood ; while the renewed man rightly estimates all 
things, he appreciates the truth. In the second of them, 
John speaks of the Holy Spirit as an unction, or anoint- 
ing, from Christ the Holy One. 

2. That the Christian virtues are traced to the Holy 
Spirit as their source: Gal. 5:22; Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 
12:3, 9; 2 Cor. 4: 13; cf. Phil. 2: 13. In the first of 
these passages (Gal. 5:22), “love, joy, peace, forbear- 
ance, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control ” 
are said to be the fruit of the Spirit ; and in verse 5, 
of the same chapter, the Christian's expectant waiting 
for future acceptance and glory is ascribed to the Spirit’s 
agency in his heart. In the second passage: Rom. 12: 3, 
Paul teaches that God gives to every believer the meas- 
ure of faith which he possesses (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5); and, if 
we interpret this in harmony with 1 Cor. 12:3, 9, it will 
be seen that he gives this faith by the operation of the 
Holy Spirit in the soul. 

3. That Christian conduct and worship are referred to 
the Holy Spirit as their source: Rom. 8:14; Gal. 4:6; 
Eph. 5 : 18, 19. ‘ In the first of these texts : Rom. 8 : 14, 
the sons of God are said to be led or moved by the Spirit ; 
in the second, Christian prayer is ascribed to the in- 
fluence of the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:26, on which Augus- 
tine remarks, fc Non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso, sed 
in nobis gemit, quia nos gemere facit ”) ; and in the 
third : Eph. 5 : 18, 19, the proper singing of spiritual 
songs is made consequent on being filled with the Spirit 
(cf. also 1 Cor. 14:15; and Phil. 1:6). 

4. That the Christian's conflict with his evil propensi- 
ties, and his victory over them, are traced to the Holy 


330 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

Spirit: Rom. 8: 13; Gal. 5: 17. In the former of these 
passages, Rom. 8: 13, we are taught, that, by the as- 
sistance of the Spirit, believers slay, or put an end to 
the deeds of the flesh, — those acts which are prompted 
by a carnal mind ; and, in the latter : Gal. 5:17, the Spirit 
is said to strive eagerly against the flesh emOviiel (cf. 
5:19, 20). 

5. That the spiritual life of believers depends upon 
their union with Christ , who dwells in them by his Spirit : 
John 15:1-6; and perhaps 14:16-21; Eph. 3:16, 17; 
Rom. 8:8-10; (cf. 1 Cor. 3 : 16, 6 : 19 ; Eph. 2:22). Van 
Oosterzee remarks that, 

“ What Paul says of the Holy Ghost as indwelling within 
the believer, refers us to the highest blessing of the New 
Covenant, in which the Holy Ghost is the immanent, vital 
principle of the redeemed. During the Old Testament he 
overshadowed momentarily individual holy men of God; in 
the New he abides perpetually in the heart of each Christian.” 

This account of the Spirit’s work in Old Testament 
saints may well be questioned ; for the Psalmist prays, 
“ Cast me not away from thy presence ; and take not 
thy holy Spirit from me,” and sings of the Lord as his 
Shepherd leading him constantly and restoring his soul. 
In the one hundred and thirty-ninth Psalm, there is a 
wonderful description of the omnipresence of the Divine 
Spirit, and there are many evidences that the devout be- 
lieved him to be always with them, searching their hearts. 
It is more than probable that God’s grace was com- 
municated to them in nearly the same ways as it is to us. 
How fully this was revealed to them is another matter. 

6. That the work of sanctification is directly ascribed 
to the Holy Spirit: 2 Thess. 2: 13; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Cor. 
3 : 18. In the first of these texts, belief of the truth is 
placed in logical order after the Spirit’s working; that 
depends on this. In the second, election is said to be 
realized in sanctification wrought by the Spirit. Both 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 331 

these texts refer especially to the first act of the sancti- 
fying work, but without excluding the remainder. In 
the third, we have the progressive transformation of the 
believer into the image of - Christ attributed virtually to 
the Spirit. “ But we all, with unveiled face, beholding 
in (Revised Version, “ reflecting as ”) a mirror the glory 
of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from 
glory to glory, as by the Lord , the Spirit.” That is to 
say, the transformation is such a one as might be ex- 
pected from the working of the Spirit of Christ. 

Remark, (i) The doctrine of the trinity underlies 
and explains the various representations here given. 

Remark. (2) The indwelling or gracious working 
of the Spirit is, therefore, really the indwelling of the 
Father and the Son as well. 

Remark. (3) Regeneration, inspiration, etc., are as- 
cribed to the Holy Spirit; and, as the work of sanctifi- 
cation belongs to the same sphere of action with these, 
analogy would lead us to refer it to the same agent. 

Remark. (4) In the economy of our salvation, the 
office-work of the Holy Spirit seems to embrace what- 
ever is done within the human soul by special divine 
agency. 

IV. Relation of Believers to the Growth of Chris- 
tian Life in Themselves and Others 

Believers are free moral agents and their action, espe- 
cially so far as it is Christian, has a very important in- 
fluence on their sanctification. Paul was unceasing in 
prayer, was unwearied in labors for Christ, was heroic 
in trial, and was earnest iii withstanding bodily tempta- 
tion. Thus he pressed towards the mark, and finished 
his course. 

1. One of the forms of Christian life by which be- 
lievers may contribute to their own growth in grace is 
true worship. 


33 2 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


By worship we mean the homage of the soul paid to 
God in view of his attributes and prerogatives. This 
homage may be directly expressed in praise, and then it 
involves a corresponding admission of the worshipper’s 
dependence, and perhaps guilt ; or it may be implied only, 
while the worshipper testifies his sense of dependence 
and guilt. In further considering the topic before us, we 
first speak of the nature, the duty, and the efficacy of 
prayer. 

( 1 ) Prayer is said to have four elements : namely, 
a. Adoration, or homage to God in view of his nature, 
or the sum of his perfections, sometimes expressed by the 
single word, “ holiness ” ; b. Thanksgiving, or homage 
to God in view of his beneficence; c. Confession of sin, 
or homage to God in view of his righteousness ; d. Peti- 
tion for favors, or homage to God in view of his grace 
and faithfulness. 

(2) There are a few things worthy of particular atten- 
tion in the teaching of Christ as to prayer by his people : 

a. Their petitions should be offered either to him- 
self, or to the Father in his name: John 14:13; 
15:16; 16:23, 2 4- “Hitherto ye have asked nothing 
in my name; ask and ye shall receive.” To ask in the 
name of Christ is, therefore, something more than to 
ask in his spirit, i. e., with a filial, trustful, obedient spirit ; 
for it cannot reasonably be doubted that the disciples 
had thus prayed many a time already. Something else 
must be meant, trust in Jesus as Mediator, Intercessor, 
Saviour. They must believe in him as well as in the 
Father: John 14:1. And God will give every answer 
to prayer in and through Christ. Jesus is now King, 
Dispenser of good to his people. Every blessing comes 
through him, and every request should be made through 
him. 

b. This was understood by his disciples as not for- 
bidding prayer or praise to himself: Acts 7: 59; 9:14, 


CHRISTIAN LIFE! BEGINNING AND GROWTH 333 

21. “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Is not this he who 
destroyed in Jerusalem those who call on this name?” 
(cf. Acts 1:24; 2:21; 22:16; 1 Cor. 1:2). Christ 
never refused worship that was offered him on earth ; 
and the book of Revelation describes the heavenly hosts 
as paying homage to him: Rev. 4:11-14. 

c. Neither does his relation to believers suggest any 
impropriety in prayer to the Holy Spirit. But the words 
of Jesus preserved by John may be taken as evidence 
that what has been called the Lord’s Prayer was never 
meant to be a set form to be used by Christians in social 
worship. It was rather a type or model of prayer for 
the disciples of Christ at that stage of his ministry. 
With more knowledge of himself and his work they 
would naturally modify their petitions. 

d. Prayer should never be dictatorial, but rather 
humble and trustful. Strong faith is perfectly consistent 
with submission to the supreme wisdom of God; for 
faith leans upon Christ, trusts his wisdom and love. No 
prayer is acceptable to God unless it is offered in faith, 
and no dictatorial prayer is offered in faith. “ Prayer 
which thinks to command omnipotence is profane. 
Prayer that demands its own way is impious. Prayer 
which thinks to sweep the, whole field of physical disease 
and convert it into a garden of the Lord must suffer 
defeat. True prayer is submission to the divine will. 
Sickness may be the cross for which we have asked, and 
by which we are to be raised nearer to God and better 
fitted for the land where sickness is unknown” (Pres- 
byterian). But this thought must not be carried so far 
as to be incompatible with affectionate and importunate 
pleading for what is believed to be in harmony with the 
Lord’s will. 

e. Prayer should be often vocal. There are feelings 
which cannot be uttered, and there are circumstances 
when silent prayer is best; but when it can be offered 


334 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


without ostentation or offence secret prayer should be 
vocal, for the single reason that the utterance of our 
desires by the voice strengthens them and expels foreign 
thoughts. 

But two objections are urged against prayer in the 
form of petition , one founded on the ignorance of man, 
and the other on the order of nature. 

(a) On human ignorance. Says one of the objectors, 
“ I -cannot express my repugnance at the notion that 
supreme intelligence and wisdom can be influenced by 
the suggestion of any human mind, however great.” 1 

This very plausible objection will lose its force, if it 
be remembered, 

a. That a great object in creation and moral govern- 
ment is the production of moral persons of real worth 
in the sight of God. But moral persons can only be 
trained to virtue by action which involves some degree 
of self-direction and responsibility for the conduct of 
others. And it is surely no more inexplicable that God 
should be influenced by prayer than by any other act 
or state of man. To deny the influence of prayer is to 
surrender a belief in the providence of God. The 
desires of a child must count for something in the mind 
of a father especially if that .father has purposely en- 
dowed the child with a nature having desires which call 
for expression. 

b. The Kingdom of Christ is in some respects repub- 
lican. Every member of that kingdom takes an interest 
in the common welfare, and shares, to some extent, in the 
direction of affairs. Every one, however humble, is 
treated as a freeman and allowed to act in moral things. 
His cooperation in good is desired and welcomed. He 
is, therefore, informed as to the purpose and spirit of the 
supreme Ruler in this republic. This Ruler has the 
heart of a father towards all under his authority. He 

1 “ The Prayer Gauge, p. 122. 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 335 

treats them as children. His republic is a family, and 
even the feeblest child is instructed and encouraged to 
share in the common life. Hence, petition is normal, 
respectful, and useful. It offers the only means of filial 
intercourse with the great-hearted Ruler in time of need. 
Without it that intercourse would not fully and honestly 
express the filial spirit, and give all possible play to the 
free and growing nature of children. The fatherhood of 
God reveals the secret of prayer. 

(b) On the order of nature. This is said to be sacred 
and inviolable. “ I bless God, but I do not pray,” wrote 
Rousseau. “ What should I ask of Him ? That he 
would change for me the course of things ; do miracles in 
my favor ? I who ought to love above all the order estab- 
lished by his wisdom and maintained by his providence, 
shall I wish that order to be disturbed on my account ? ” 1 
a. But to this we reply, What if that divine order in- 
cludes in its wide embrace both prayer and its answer? 
What if prayer is a kind of action having a place and in- 
fluence in the scheme of providence for the realization 
of true moral life? What if the fixed order is not so rigid 
as to be disturbed by the free play of finite spontaneity 
and choice within such limits as infinite wisdom may set ? 
There is no problem brought into the study of nature by 
the Christian doctrine of prayer which is not brought 
in by the doctrine of any degree of moral freedom in 
created beings ; nay, which is not brought in by the ad- 
mission of human freedom in any form of activity. And 
nothing is more certain than that the spirit of man, 
renewed by the Spirit of God, not only prays spon- 
taneously, but prays with an expectation of being heard 
and answered. 

“ More things are wrought by prayer 
Than this world dreams of. Wherefore let thy voice 
Rise like a fountain for me night and day. 

1 “ Emile,” Livre IV. 


33 6 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

For what are men better than sheep or goats, 

That nourish a blind life within the brain, 

If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer 
Both for themselves and those who call them friends? 
For so the whole round earth is every way 
Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.” 

— Tennyson. 

b. Indeed, there is no conclusive objection to suppos- 
ing that God often makes use of physical forces in an- 
swering prayer. For man can use those forces and is 
doing this constantly. Says Wallace, “ We can antic- 
ipate the time when the earth will produce only cul- 
tivated plants and animals ; when man’s selection shall 
have supplanted ‘ natural selection ’ ; and when the ocean 
will be the only domain in which that power can be 
exerted, which, for countless cycles of ages, ruled 
supreme over the earth.” 1 But human intelligence and 
power are finite. Not so those of God! As author of 
natural forces, and intimately present with them, he can 
surely, in ways imperceptible to man, direct them to the 
accomplishment of such ends as he pleases. If prayer 
is acceptable to him, and if he chooses to answer it by 
making use of physical forces, there is nothing in the 
known character of these forces, or in his known re- 
lation to them to forbid his doing it. 

c. Moreover, God may have preadjusted the forces 
of nature in such a way as to answer by them some of 
the prayers which are offered by his children. His 
knowledge is perfect, embracing from the foundation of 
the world every act of every one of his creatures. Why, 
then, may he not have provided for the answer of ac- 
ceptable prayer through the working of natural laws? 
It seems to us that no one who admits the omniscience 
and wisdom of God can question the possibility or indeed 
the probability of such answers to prayer. 


1 “ Natural Selection,” p. 326. 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 337 

d. Finally, one cannot deny the use of physical forces 
in answering prayer, without denying that it is answered 
at all ; for all kinds of mental action are accompanied by 
corresponding modifications of the substance of the 
brain, and so of the body. Thus, spiritual forces change 
the action of physical forces ; and indirectly, if not 
directly, God makes use of the latter, as well as of the 
former, in answering prayer. Is it credible that God 
cannot do that directly, which he can do mediately? Or 
is it reasonable to suppose that man can do what God 
cannot, in using the powers of nature to accomplish 
rational ends? 

(3) If further evidence is needed to show the in- 
fluence of prayer on the mind of God, and the fact that it 
is answered by granting the petitioner his request, or, 
something better than his request, it may be found in the 
teaching of Scripture, Matt. 7:7 f., “ Ask, and it shall 
be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall 
be opened to you ” ; 18 : 19 ; 21 : 22 ; Luke 1 1 : 13 ; James 
1 : 5 f. ; 4 : 2, 3 ; 5 : 16 f. ; 1 John 5 : 14 f. ; Ex. 32 : 7 f. 
Christ himself prayed and taught his disciples to pray. 
From the ascension of Christ to the present hour the 
most earnest and efficient Christians have been men of 
prayer. Not men who believed in the reflex influence 
of prayer as the good to be directly sought by the needy 
soul, but men who believed in God as one who is a 
rewarder of those who seek after him. Nevertheless, 
it is also true that prayer is talking with God and fellow- 
ship with him, and that this is conducive to growth in 
grace; but only when it is sincere, when the soul means 
what it says, when it asks expecting to receive, then it 
does receive both in the act of asking, and because of 
the believing request. 

(4) Rousseau speaks of prayer as if it were always 
a request for personal benefit or supposed benefit, and 
were never in behalf of other men. But this is far from 


33 8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the truth. Though the first of all supplications may be 
the cry, “ God be merciful to me, a sinner,” it is not the 
one which is oftenest in the heart or on the lips of a 
Christian. He intercedes for others without hesitation, 
and sometimes with more zeal and trust than he speaks 
for himself. Parents, children, friends, neighbors, 
rulers, subjects, the poor, the sick, the disheartened, the 
wayward, all are remembered before God. Even ene- 
mies are commended to his grace when the believer turns 
to God in the name of Christ, and pleads for his blessing 
on mankind. The heart of the suppliant is enlarged as 
he thinks of human need and divine grace. 

2. Another kind of action favorable to Christian 
growth is the study vf God’s world and word and prov- 
idence. Prayer for spiritual light should always be 
accompanied by study. If we ask God for bread, we 
sow and reap, in order to cooperate with him in answer- 
ing our own prayer. So likewise if we ask God for 
spiritual illumination, we should search the Scriptures, 
his word, examine his works, and observe his providence, 
in order to obtain from him the instruction needed. 
These are fountains of knowledge opened by him, and 
his grace will enable us to draw from them refreshing 
draughts. In nature nothing is too great or too small to 
contain a lesson from God. Order, relation, adjustment, 
purpose, taste, beauty, utility, fill our souls with wonder, 
and indeed with equal wonder whether we look at the 
starry heavens through a telescope or at tiny molecules 
through a miscroscope. The reverent study of nature 
will not fail to beget feelings of wonder and admiration. 

The same is true of the study of Holy Scripture. Its 
lessons are surprisingly various and rich. Their meaning 
is inexhaustible. Simple biography, compressed history, 
apt proverbs, principles of law, rules of life, sacred lyrics, 
homely proverbs, suggestive parables, fervid arguments, 
solemn appeals, and uplifting predictions, follow each 


CHRISTIAN LIFE: BEGINNING AND GROWTH 339 

other through the many parts of this divine library, 
demanding the closest attention and taxing the highest 
powers of reason and imagination. 

No less interesting to many a Christian heart are the 
events of life in the light of divine providence. To study 
the relation of crime to wealth, of wealth to character, 
of character to intelligence, and of all these to govern- 
ment, is one of the most fascinating employments. And 
when God is seen to be offering himself to us in all these 
phenomena of life, the movements of his providence are 
an incentive to devout worship and unhesitating obe- 
dience. 

3. But it is never to be forgotten that doing his will 
is prerequisite to the fullest knowledge. Christian growth 
is promoted by strenuous action, by loyal obedience, by 
resolute self-sacrifice for the good of others. To hear 
the word is not enough ; to do it is still more necessary. 
To work for God in dependence on God is the law of life 
and growth. Hence believers are exhorted to run the 
race, to fight the good fight, to strive to enter into rest, 
to welcome the work of faith, and labor of love, and 
patience of hope, and, in a word, to live as Christ lived. 
Thus are they to work out their own salvation, knowing 
always that they are able to do it, because God works in 
them both to will and to work, according to his good 
pleasure. 













PART FIFTH 

CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


34 


PART FIFTH 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 

Willing service to mankind is given a large place in 
the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. It is treated as the 
best expression of love to one’s neighbor, and accepted 
as true service to the Lord himself : Matt. 5 : 44 f. ; 
25 : 34-40. “ In so far as ye did it to one of the least of 
these my brethren, ye did it to me.” But it is worthy of 
notice that love to one’s neighbor is virtually love to 
mankind in general, even though one knows but a few of 
the countless multitude. Conscious affection depends 
upon knowledge and actual service upon opportunity. 
But the will must often be taken for the deed. That 
one loves and serves a brother whom he sees is evidence 
that he would, if possible, do the same for the brother 
whom he does not see. We may therefore study Chris- 
tian service in connection with the family, the neighbor- 
hood, the church, and the Lord’s day. 


342 


CHAPTER I 

IN FAMILY LIFE 

1. The primary sphere of Christian service is the 
family. For mutual love is the natural bond of union 
between husband and wife, and at the same time the 
purest incentive to helpfulness. Through its influence 
each lives for the other. Envy has no place in their 
hearts, and the exhortation of Paul, “ Husbands, love 
your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church and 
gave himself up for it,” Eph. 5 : 25, is seen to be full of 
sweet reasonableness. Opportunities for service of the 
highest quality occur daily. Frankness, kindness, in- 
tegrity, patience are called for every hour. The firmest 
confidence in each other is necessary, and the most 
delicate regard for whatever things are righteous, pure, 
lovely, and of good report. 

2. And when children are added to the home, oppor- 
tunities for Christian service are multiplied indefinitely. 
Then first is the perfect idea of family life realized. 
Then husband and wife, parents and children, brothers 
and sisters, servants and neighbors, guests and strangers, 
meet under the same roof and hold converse together. 
Then authority and obedience, equality and generosity, 
candor and courtesy, are seen to flow from the deep 
well of loving kindness. 

3. Family worship consecrates daily service and turns 
the eye of the spirit upward in daily prayer and thanks- 
giving. Parental care and love, transfigured by the 
Spirit of Christ, attempt their most arduous and yet hope- 
ful work. The noblest sentiments and sweetest charities 
are here illustrated by conduct as regular as the pulsa- 
tions of the heart. Character is tested in the home circle, 
and, if it rests on love to Christ, will there put on its 
whitest robes. 


343 


CHAPTER II 


IN NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE 
HIS is closely connected with family life. For, in 



JL the literal sense of the word, neighbors are persons 
or families that live near each other, and are therefore 
likely to meet often and to become well acquainted. In 
country districts they are more likely to have many inter- 
ests in common than in cities. Sometimes there are meet- 
ings, societies, or amusements, bringing the people to- 
gether and giving them similar tastes, convictions, or 
aims. Christian service of the utmost value is therefore 
possible. In many places it takes the form of neighbor- 
hood meetings for social worship. Christians of different 
denominations unite in them, and they are found to be 
exceedingly useful. 

It is not easy to overstate the spiritual value of 
Christian service in the social worship of neighbors. 
Yet for this we are mainly indebted to Christian churches. 

And this brings us to what may be called the positive 
institutions of the Christian religion. They belong to the 
second class of means for promoting the growth of 
Christian life, both intensively and extensively, both in 
the individual and in the world. 


344 


CHAPTER III 


IN CHURCH LIFE 

T HE power of church life to promote the sanctification 
of men and the spread of Christianity will be made 
evident by a careful study of I. Christian churches and 
II. Christian ordinances. We proceed, therefore, to 
give some account of the constitution, the government, 
the officers, the sacred rites and the work of churches 
referred to in the New Testament. 

I. Christian Churches 1 

Note especially that the functions of Christian churches 
are not exhausted in promoting the sanctification of their 
own members ; they are aggressive as well as conservative 
organizations ; they are employed by Christ in preserving 
the truth and edifying the saints, but also in diffusing 
the truth and subduing the world to Christ. In view of 
their twofold office we are justified iij giving consider- 
able time to our study of them. 

1 Davidson (S.), “The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Tes- 
tament Unfolded,” etc. ; Ladd (G. T.), “ The Principles of Church 
Polity”; Jacob (G. A.), “The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New 
Testament”; Dexter (H. M.), “A Handbook of Congregational- 
ism”; Ripley (H. J.), “Church Polity,” etc.; Pierce (Wm.), 
“ The Ecclesiastical Principles and Polity of the Wesleyan 
Methodists”; Wayland (F.), “Notes on the Principles and 
Practices of Baptist Churches”; Miller (S.), “The Christian 
Ministry; or, The Primitive and Apostolic Order of the Church 
of Christ Vindicated” (Presbyterian); Hort (F. A.), “The 
Christian iicKXvjcrla” a very scholarly Examination of the N. T. 
reference to the Ecclesia. 


345 


34 6 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

In regard to the constitution, government, and work 
of a Christian Church, the following statements may be 
made : — 

i. That the Apostles , either by word or action, have 
determined what ought to be the polity of Christian 
churches. 

i Cor. 14: 33, 40; 12 : 12 sq. (cf. 7: 15) ; 1 Cor. 4:17; 
7:17; 11:16, 34; Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5 (cf. Acts 
20:17; Phil. 1:1, etc.); Heb. 13:7, 17; Acts 20:28; 
1 Peter 5:14; Titus 2: 15; 1 Cor. 9: 14 (cf. vs. 7-1 1) ; 
Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Thess. 
3:6 (cf. Matt. 18: 15 sq. ; 1 Tim. 3: 15) ; 1 Cor. 16: 1, 
2 ; 14 : 34-36 (cf. 1 Tim. 2 : 12) ; Acts 14 : 26, 28 ; 15 : 2, 3. 

These passages show 

(1) That, in the Apostle’s view, order should reign in 
the churches of Christ, every member filling his own 
place and doing his own work; 

(2) That essentially the same principles and practices 
were taught by Paul in all the churches under his care, 
the practices resting upon the principles; 

(3) That he was wont to organize churches, and ap- 
point elders or pastors over them, wherever there was a 
group of converts ; 

(4) That these elders had everywhere substantially the 
same rank and work in the churches, and were to be 
treated accordingly; 

(5) That they were, as a rule, entitled to a reasonable 
support from those for whom they labored, if they gave 
their whole time to the work ; and 

(6) That the churches, as such, were charged with the 
duty of maintaining Christian doctrine and discipline. 

These various items fully justify our statement, unless 
it can be proved that the church arrangements of the 
apostolic age were temporary and provisional ; and, if 
that can be shown, it will, of course, be impossible to 
prove that Christians are under obligation to form them- 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


347 


selves into societies at all. But evidently the presump- 
tion is altogether in favor of our statement ; and it be- 
longs to those who deny the permanency of church-life 
and order to show cause for their denial. 

2. That the word “church” is used to denote a so- 
ciety of baptized believers , maintaining together the wor- 
ship and ordinances of Christ , according to his revealed 
will. For this use of the word “ church,” see Matt. 
18:17; Acts 5:11; 8:1; 11:22,26; 12:1,5; 13:1; 
14:23, 27; 15:3,4,22,41; 16:5; 18:22; 20:17,28; 
Rom. 16:1,4, 16, 23 ; 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:17; 6:4; 7:17; 
10:32; 1 1 : 16, 18, 22; 14:4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34, 
35; 16:1, 19, and about ninety other passages in the 
New Testament. 

The word ecclesia is possibly used once in the New 
Testament to denote all the churches in certain provinces, 
as being in some sense one: Acts 9:31. But there may 
have been but one organized church in those provinces. 
It is also used a few times (probably seventeen) of all 
Christians in heaven and on earth : See Eph. 1:22; 
3:10, and thrice of a public assembly, whether orderly or 
not: Acts 19: 32, 39, 41, if capable of civil action. But 
these uses of the word are exceptional, and the New 
Testament gives us no reason to connect the word “ con- 
stitution,” or government, with the word “ church ” 
when employed in either of these senses. The original 
and secular meaning of the word is of no importance to 
us, except as accounting for its ordinary Christian use. 
Twice it is used with reference to the Jewish assembly 
or congregation : namely, Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:12; but 
this use of the word does not shed any light on Christian 
Church polity. 1 

1 Thayer refers to about fourteen texts in which he thinks 
iKK\r)<rla is applied to the whole body of Christians on earth : 
viz., 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ; Eph. 1:22; 3:10; 5 : 23, 27, 29 ; Phil. 3:6; 
Col. 1 : 18, 24 ; Acts 20 : 28 ; Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 3:15; 


34-8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

3. The primary relation of the members of a Christian 
church to one another is that of equality and fraternity. 
They are all brethren ; all entitled to the same privileges, 
all kings and priests unto God : Matt. 23 : 8 ; Acts 6:3; 
1 Cor. 8 : 12 ; Gal. 3 : 26 sq. ; 4:7 (cf. 1 Cor. 12 : 12 sq. ; 
Gal. 6: 10; Eph. 2:i8sq. ; Heb. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:2; 1 
Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 1 Peter 5:3). 

Hence, social and civil distinctions do not affect one's 
position in the church. A son may be the spiritual 
teacher and overseer of his father, or a servant of his 
master. Hence, too, in the church, men do not claim 
office as a right, but are put in office by the act of their 
brethren. Fitness for official service is the only good 
reason for appointment to it. 

4. In the last instance , it belongs to every church as a 
whole, and not to its officers, to exclude and receive 
members; the right to exclude presupposing the right to 
receive: Rom. 14:1; Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:13; 2 
Thess. 3: 6, 14 (cf. Titus 3:10, 11) ; and see also Acts 
1:23; 6:3, 4, 5; 15:2. 

The members of a church cannot transfer their author- 
ity to others, for it is intrusted to them ; and the use of it 
is a duty no less than a right. They may perhaps do a 
particular act, agreed upon, through representatives ; 
but there is no Scriptural ground for more than this. 

The conference at Jerusalem, Acts 4: 15, may be 
thought to furnish an example of submitting a particular 
point to others for final decision; but neither that nor 
the nature of the case warrants a general transfer of 
rights and duties to any other body. For, in the first 
place, there is no valid reason to suppose that the church 
polity sanctioned by the Apostles is not adapted to all 
times and peoples, since true religion fits men for re- 

and one text : Heb. 12 : 23 ; where it denotes Christians in heaven. 
But these may be interpreted as generic or figurative uses of 
the word. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


349 


sponsibility ; and, in the second place, such a transfer, 
once made, cannot easily be revoked, and therefore, by 
making it, the members of a church interfere, more or 
less, with the rights and duties of their successors. 

Whether all who belong to a church, or only the 
brethren should act in receiving and excluding members 
is debatable, see i Tim. 2:12; but, in a majority of 
Baptist churches, all are expected to act, if they see fit 
to do so. The voice of a majority is binding on the whole 
body. See 2 Cor. 2:6. 

5. The members of a Christian church ought to receive 
into the same such persons only as have been baptized on 
a credible profession of their faith , and as have reason- 
ably correct views of Christian doctrine: Matt. 10:32, 
37. 38; 28:19 (cf. 16:16); John 3:5; 4:1; Acts 
2:41; 8 : 12, 13 ; 1 Tim. i : 19, 20 ; cf. 1 Cor. 5:5, 13 ; 
Titus 3 : 10. 

As the essential prerequisites for admission to a Chris- 
tian church are given in the New Testament, no church 
can rightfully welcome to its fellowship persons who are 
not believed to have those prerequisites; nor is any 
church at liberty to insist on qualifications other than 
those virtually prescribed by the New Testament. 

We say “ virtually prescribed ” ; and we think that 
the last qualification named above, to wit, “ reasonably 
correct views of Christian doctrine,” is in this way pre- 
scribed, for it is implied in the law of discipline for here- 
tics and errorists. A man who will probably sow error 
in the church that receives him ought not to be received ; 
for the law of self-preser,vation and efficiency forbids it. 
But regard must be had to the age and circumstances of 
a candidate, in deciding whether he has “ reasonably 
correct views of doctrine.” 

It may properly be added, that persons should be re- 
ceived to baptism and church membership as soon as they 
give to the members of the church satisfactory evidence 


35 ° MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

of their faith, and of their desire to obey the Saviour’s 
commands. 

6. The members of a Christian church are responsible 
for the discipline of offenders belonging to the body. 

There are at least five kinds of offences, for any one 
of which a person ought to be excluded from the church, 
namely : 

( 1 ) Wrong-doing to a brother in the church, for which 
satisfaction is refused: Matt. 18:15-17 (Matt. 5 : 23, 
26). 

(2) Gross immorality of any kind: 1 Cor. 5: 1-13. 

(3) Inculcating religious error: 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20 (cf. 
2 Tim. 2 : 17, 18). 

(4) Creating division in the church: Titus 3: 10. 

(5) Idleness, meddlesomeness, or disregard of man- 
ifest family obligations: 2 Thess. 2:6 (cf. 1 Tim. 5:8) ; 
also 1 Tim. 5 : 19. 

In case of flagrant immorality or crime, the offender 
ought to be promptly excluded, without waiting to see 
whether he repents or not; but, if he then gives con- 
vincing proof of repentance, he may in due time be re- 
stored. 

No charge against an elder or pastor of a church 
should be received, unless it is sustained by two or three 
witnesses, — a rule which seems to presuppose eminent 
integrity and self-control in such an officer, making it 
particularly improbable that he will commit an offence 
worthy of discipline : 1 Tim. 5:19. 

In case of special doubt or difficulty, it is sometimes 
wise for a church to seek the advice of judicious brethren 
from without, or of a counsel of delegates from other 
churches, before giving its final judgment. 

All the important business of a church ought to be 
transacted at meetings properly notified as business 
meetings, so that all members who desire to do so may 
be present and share in its action. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE. 351 

7 - It belongs to a Christian church to select for official 
service such of its members as it deems qualified for the 
same: Acts 1:21 sq. 5.6:3 (cf. 13:2, 3; 14:26, 27; 
15:2). 

The action of the church under the direction of the 
Apostles, before the day of Pentecost, cannot be relied 
upon as certainly expressing the mind of Christ ; yet the 
presumption that it did so. in the instance cited is very 
strong; for we find the Apostles, after the Pentecost, 
directing the church to repeat its action in the choice of 
another grade of officers. These two cases evidently 
establish a precedent, and reveal a principle ; and we 
find nothing inconsistent with this precedent and prin- 
ciple in the later teaching of the Apostles. We have a 
right to presume that the churches were always called to 
choose their pastors and deacons, though the formal act 
of consecration was performed by apostles or elders. 1 

8. As a rule ; churches ought to respect the action of 
one another; for, though organically separate, they are 
under the same law, animated by the same spirit, seeking 
the same end, and intrusted with equal authority. 

( 1 ) Hence the ordination of a minister by one church 
may be properly accepted by others as valid; yet this 
act is of such a nature as to render the advice of a 
council of delegates from several churches very desirable, 
if not prudentially imperative. Should the council deem 
the candidate presented unworthy of ordination, and thus 
disagree with the church calling it, the latter has power 
to go on and ordain the man ; but it is rarely or never 
wise to do so; for the man thus ordained would have 
slight claim to be recognized by other churches as a 
competent and trustworthy minister. 

(2) Hence, too, the discipline of one church should be 
treated as valid and just by other churches. Exceptions 

1 Compare “ Clemens Romanus ” ; 1 Ep. ad Corinthios, c. 44, 

ai/v evdoKrjadarjs rrjs iKK\r]<rlas Trd<n)s. 


35 2 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

to this rule must be of very rare occurrence; for the 
relation of churches to one another is fraternal ; and a 
spirit of mutual confidence ought to be cherished. 

(3) This is what churches ought to be and ought to do, 
according to the apostolic teaching; but, if any so-called 
churches differ essentially in doctrine or in polity from 
the New Testament standard, their action need not, and 
oftentimes should not, be considered as valid. 

9. Without risk to self-control or separate responsi- 
bility to Christ , churches may combine their resources and 
influence for the furtherance of religious or benevolent 
enterprises: Acts 11 : 29, 30; Gal. 2 : 10; 2 Cor. 8 and 9. 

It is evident from these passages that, under the direc- 
tion of Paul, a systematic and united effort was made by 
the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to assist, by a 
large contribution of money, their poor brethren in Judea. 
It also appears that a well-known and trusted brother 
was associated by the churches with Paul for transmit- 
ting this contribution. 

But it does not appear that any ecclesiastical body, 
superior to the churches, was called into existence, or 
was engaged in this work. By what method the churches 
appointed the brother referred to, we are not informed. 
One church may have chosen him, and the other churches 
may have been asked to concur in the choice ; or the 
several churches may have made the election by dele- 
gates empowered to act for them. It is plain, however, 
as before stated, that delegates can act for churches only 
in the particular matter intrusted to them. If they do 
more than this, their action can be only advisory, binding 
themselves, perhaps, but not the churches. 

The members of a Christian church, fully organ- 
ized for growth and service, may be divided into three 
classes, laical, diaconal, and clerical ; and a few words 
must be said as to the particular functions of each. 

10. The lay members of a church are required to pay 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


353 


suitable deference to their officers, and , along with the 
deacons, to see that their pastors have reasonable com- 
pensation for their official work: Heb. 13:7, 17; Gal. 
6:6; 1 Tim. 5 : 17, 18 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 14; cf. vs. 7-1 1. 

Of course, they are to share in all the work of the 
church, previously described, every one endeavoring to 
serve the body according to his special ability : 1 Cor. 
12:12 sq. ; Rom. 12:4 sq. The decision as to what is 
reasonable pay for the official work done by a pastor 
must be left to the judgment of the whole church. But 
if any layman of means should differ from the church, 
thinking the pastors ought to be paid more than is judged 
to be a reasonable compensation by the body, he is not 
to be blamed for making up what he considers the de- 
ficiency. 

It is doubtful whether a church has a right to fix the 
sum which each one of its members shall pay in support 
of public worship, and, in case of refusal, to deal with 
the delinquent by way of discipline. Nor is it certain 
that every member of a church ought to pay for the sup- 
port of preaching in proportion to his income. Yet the 
salary of a pastor, though raised by voluntary contribu- 
tions, is not a gift to him, nor alms from the church. 

11. The deacons of a church ought to assist the pastor 
in the subordinate duties of his office , especially in caring 
for the sick and the poor: Acts 6:1 sq. ; Rom. 12:7; 
16:1,2; 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3 : 8-12. 

Whether the appointment of the seven Almoners of 
the church in Jerusalem, Acts 6: 1 ff.,‘was virtually the 
institution of the diaconate is still uncertain ; but it is 
plain that such duties as they performed need to be pro- 
vided for in almost every church of the present day. 

It is sometimes thought that deacons, by virtue of their 
office, have charge of all the finances of the church ; 
but there is no adequate proof of this. A church may 
select for its treasurer one who is not a deacon, or may 


354 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


appoint a financial committee to look after pecuniary 
matters. The duties of a deacon are of a semi-spiritual 
character, and are determined by the amount of help 
which the pastor needs. In small churches, having 
pastors, there may be no occasion, for a time, for the 
service of deacons; yet it would be wise, even in such 
cases, to have at least one deacon who can take the lead, 
should the office of pastor become vacant. 

From the statement of Justin Martyr, in his “ First 
Apology,” it is almost certain that deacons distributed the 
bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper; but the New 
Testament does not allude to this as one of their func- 
tions. 

Deacons should be selected for office by the church of 
which they are members, and which they are to serve; 
and may properly be set apart to their work by prayer 
and laying on of hands, — the pastor or bishop naturally 
leading in the consecration. 

12. The pastors of Christian churches are to watch 
over the churches zvhich they serve , instruct them in the 
gospel , rebuke false teachers, and refute their errors, in- 
sist upon suitable discipline ; and, in a word, be leaders, 
teachers, and examples to the flock in all spiritual things: 
Acts 20: 17, 28; Eph. 4: 11, 12; Phil. 1 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 3: 1- 
7; 5: 1, 17; Titus 1:5-9; Heb. 13: 7, 17; 1 Peter 5: 1- 
4; 1 Tim. 4: 11-14; 2 Tim. 2: 2. 1 

1 Muller (J.), “Von der gottlichen Einsetzung des geist- 
lichen Amtes,” Abhandlungen, pp. 468-657; Nitzsch (C. I.), 
“ Praktische Theologie ” ; Hoppin (J. M.), “The Office and 
Work of the Christian Ministry”; Vinet (A.), “ Pastoral Theol- 
ogy”; Ripley (H. J.), “Sacred Rhetoric”; Way land (F.), 
“The Ministry of the Gospel”; Cannon (J. S.), “Lectures on 
Pastoral Theology”; Beecher (H. W.), “Yale Lectures on 
Preaching”; Hall (J.), “God’s Word through Preaching”; 
Storrs (H. R.), “Preaching without Notes”; Taylor (W. M.), 
“The Ministry of the Word”; Blaikie (W. G.), “The Work of 
the Ministry”; Porter (N.), “Lectures on Homiletics and 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


355 


For the use of the word pastors , see Eph. 4:11 (and 
cf. John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2; Matt. 
26:31; John 10: 11 sq. ; Heb. 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). 
For the use of the word teachers , see Eph. 4:11 ( c f. 
Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 
1:11; 4 * 3 ; Heb. 5:12; James 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:2). 
For the word bishops, see Acts 20:28; Phil. 1 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 
3:2; Titus 1 : 7 (cf. 1 Peter 2:25; Heb. 12:15; 1 Peter 
5:2). For elders, see Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2,4,6, 
22,23; 16:4; 20:17; 21; 18; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:17, 19; 
Titus 1:5; James 5 : 14; 1 Peter 5:152 John 1 ; 3 John 
1. For presidents or leaders, see 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 
3:11; (cf. Rom. 12:8); Heb. 13:7, 17, 24 (cf. Matt. 
2:6; Luke 22:26; Acts 15 : 22) . 


That the words, “elder” and “overseer,” or “bishop,” 
refer to the same officer in a church is evident (1) from 
their being used interchangeably; (2) from the identity 
of qualifications required of them; (3) from the way in 
which overseers and deacons are named together, — as 
if they were the only officers of a church. 1 

Against this it is urged 

a. That Titus had Episcopal authority in Crete: Titus 
1:5; but there is no sufficient evidence of this. The 
brief direction of Paul is fairly accounted for, by 
assuming that Titus was an evangelist, commissioned to 


Preaching”; Broadus (J. A.), “Preparation and Delivery of 
Sermons,” and “History of Preaching”; Vinet (A.), “ Histoire 
de la Predication”; Ehrenfeuchter (F.), “Die Praktische Theo- 
logie,” etc.; Zincke (F. B.), “The Duty and Discipline of Ex- 
temporary Preaching”; Mcllvaine (J. H.), “Elocution: the 
Sources and Elements of its Power”; Day (H. N.), “The Art 
of Discourse.” 

1 Winer, Neander, De Wette, Meyer, Huther, Wiesinger, 
Bickell, Rothe, Jacobson, Alford, Ellicott, Conybeare; see es- 
pecially, Mellor (E.), “ Priesthood in the Light of the New Tes- 
tament,” — a very spirited and able work. Hackett and others 
agree on this point. 


356 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

effect a further organization of the churches by the 
action, or with the cooperation of the same. It is safe 
to presume that he performed a definite service in the 
usual way, but with Paul’s authority. 

b. That the “ angels of the seven churches,” ad- 
dressed by John, were bishops or overseers, holding an 
office superior to that of “ elders.” There is, however, 
much doubt in the minds of good interpreters as to the 
significance of the word, “ angels,” in the passages re- 
ferred to ; and there is no evidence for the assertion that 
they were diocesan bishops. They may have been leading 
pastors of the seven churches, though this is doubtful. 

c. It appears that .many churches had more elders 
than one; and this may have been the case with all:’ 
Acts 11:30; Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5. Yet 
the use of the singular number in 1 Tim. 3 : 2 and Titus 
1:7, compared with 1 Tim. 3:8, 11, 12, has suggested 
the idea that there was but one pastor in some- of the 
churches. In most of the larger cities, there were doubt- 
less several small congregations as well as several 
pastors. 

It will also be observed that bishops were overseers in 
the Church, and not lords over it : Acts 20:28; that, 
in distinction from deacons, they must be “ apt to teach ” : 
1 Tim. 3:9; and that they were to look after the spiritual 
interests of the Church by preaching, as their principal 
work : Titus 1 : 9. 

d. There is scarcely sufficient ground for the opinion 
that elders were of two classes — teaching and ruling ; 
but this may have been the case. The only passage which 
obviously suggests this view is 1 Tim. 5 : 17, — “ Let the 
elders that preside well be counted worthy of double 
honor, especially those who labor in word and teach- 
ing.” But the word translated “ labor ” means literally, 
“ to work hard,” “ to weary or beat out one’s self by 
labor ” ; and the Apostle may intend to say that such 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


357 


as give themselves exhaustively to the ministry of the 
word deserve more respect and compensation than 
others. This is the view of Mosheim ; and it appears 
to be very reasonable. Dr. Ripley thinks the word 
“elders,” here includes deacons; .and his judgment 
always deserves consideration. But it is not easy to 
determine what the verse means. 

(a) The authority of pastors is moral, — depending 
on their character, their call from God, their Christian 
knowledge, and their position as religious teachers. 
They will be likely, in ordinary circumstances, to have 
all the respect and confidence which they deserve. They 
will mould their people, — “Like priest, like people.” 
Probably ministers do not have as much control over 
their people as the New Testament authorizes them to 
have ; but it is because they are not sufficiently wise 
and godly to win it. 

(b) Pastors should be selected by the whole church 
which they are to serve; but, in the first instance, they 
should be set apart to their work by the aid and approval 
of a council of elders and laymen from other churches 
— the church which calls the council being represented in 
it. The service, of ordination should include prayer, 
and the laying on of hands by the eldership : i Tim. 
4:14. But, as we understand the matter, the vote of 
a properly organized council, recognizing one as called 
of God to the ministry, and deciding to set him apart to 
that work, is the essential act in ordination. All that 
follows is but a fitting announcement of this act; first, 
by the imposition of hands, publicly; and secondly, by 
solemn prayer to God for his blessing on the person 
ordained. It is this vote of a council (or of a church) 
which, under God, authorizes a given person to admin- 
ister the ordinances, and to perform all the duties 
assigned to the ministry in well-ordered churches. 
Churches and councils should beware of acting hastily 


35^ MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

or under pressure in ordaining persons to the ministry: 
i Tim. 5 : 22. All the preliminary steps should be taken 
prayerfully and deliberately by the church. 

(c) While ordination does not impart any official gift 
or grace to him who receives it, it does promote order 
and efficiency in the churches; first, by keeping out 
of the ministry not a few persons who are unquali- 
fied for it ; and secondly , by giving moral countenance 
and support to suitable men in and after entering it. 
Thus the churches are able to protect themselves, in a 
measure, against fluent and plausible men who do not 
hold the truth, and to secure a better class of “ pastors 
and teachers ” than they would otlierwi.se have. 

(d) But should ministers of other evangelical denom- 
inations be ordained, if they would become Baptist min- 
isters ? 


Ordination for definite Christian Service 

From the course taken by the church at Antioch: Acts 
13: 1-3, it appears that persons of acknowledged minis- 
terial standing were ordained to service in a new sphere 
of labor. This ordination implied no criticism of their 
previous commission to preach the gospel. It merely 
set them apart to the same kind of work in a different 
sphere, demanding certain modifications of their work. 
On the same principle when a Pedobaptist clergyman 
wishes to enter the Baptist denomination as a regular 
minister, he may suitably be set apart by prayer and 
the laying on of hands to his work in the new sphere 
which he enters, — a sphere which modifies his work 
in respects so important as to justify the change of 
church connections which he is making. The essential 
point in such a case is that the council, after suitable 
examination, recognize by vote the person in question 
as qualified to do all the work of a regular Baptist 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


359 


minister, and as worthy of the confidence of Baptist 
churches in doing the duties of the ministry. Whether 
the public service be called an ordination or a recogni- 
tion i^ of less consequence. It will naturally share the 
characteristics of both. A generous recognition of past 
services in another sphere will accompany the God- 
speed and commission to service in the sphere now 
chosen. 

It is often the duty of pastors and churches to take 
the initiative in directing the minds of suitable men to 
the work of the ministry. Women are not eligible to 
the office of pastor; but they may be made deaconesses, 
though not as substitutes for men: Rom. 16: i; i Tim. 
3:n; cf. 5:3, 9. 

13. Evangelists are simply preachers of the gospel, 
or ministers who have no pastoral charge: Acts 21:8; 
(cf. 8:40); Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5. Many mission- 
aries are strictly evangelists. As to the wisdom 6f set- 
ting apart a class of ministers for irregular, itinerant 
preaching, in a region where pastors and churches 
abound, there will be honest differences of opinion ; but, 
in those parts of a country where there are but few 
churches supplied with pastors, evangelists are neces- 
sary. 

14. The Apostles and prophets of the first age have 
had no successors thus far; and there is no promise 
of them for the future. Their work could be done 
once for all. But they still speak to us by the Scrip- 
tures ; and their position, commission, and illumination 
were such that all Christians should obey their word. 

II. Christian Ordinances 

There are but two ordinances or sacred rites enjoined 
upon Christians by the New Testament ; namely, Baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper. Both are emblematic of central 


3^0 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

facts in the Christian religion ; and together they teach 
in a very impressive manner the vital doctrines of the 
gospel. It is, therefore, important to understand their 
meaning and use, to guard against their misinterpreta- 
tion, and to keep them as they were delivered by Christ 
to his Apostles, and by the Apostles to the primitive 
Christians. 


Christian Baptism 

We propose to consider the external rite, the signif- 
icance of the rite, the subjects of the rite, and the rela- 
tion of the rite to John’s baptism. 

1. The External Rite 

Aside from the words employed, the external rite of 
baptism consists in an immersion of the candidate in 
water, unto or into the name of the Triune God. 

That the rite includes an immersion of the subject in 
water is learned, — 

(1) From the meaning and use of the word 
which was employed by Christ himself and the inspired 
Apostles to denote the rite. Strenuous and learned 
efforts have been made to show that the word in ques- 
tion does not point to immersion as the primitive rite; 
but these efforts are unavailing. The proper meaning 
of the word — a meaning which it has always retained 
in the Greek language, and a meaning which it always 
has, unless the circumstances of the case point to a 
tropical use — is immerse. The figurative applications 
of the word may all be traced back to this, as the literal 
and radical sense expressed by the verb. To this view 
the best lexicographers assent . 1 

1 Sophocles (E. A.), “Greek Lexicon of the Later and By- 
zantine Periods,” s. v.; he remarks: “There is no evidence that 
Luke and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 61 

(2) From the use of \ovo) ) and, perhaps , \ovrpov with 
reference to baptism. Acts 22:16; (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; 
1 itus 3:5; Eph. 5 : 26 ; John 13:10; Acts 9 : 39 ; 16:33; 
Heb. 10:22; 2 Peter 2:22). On the first of these pas- 
sages, Dr. Hackett remarks : “ The sort of outward wash- 
ing expressed by this verb has been noticed on 16:33. 
Hence, there can be no question as to the mode of baptism 
in this instance; for if it be maintained that /3 dirTicrai 
is uncertain in its meaning, a definition is added in 
airoXovaaiy which removes the doubt.” His note on 
the simple word in 16: 33, is this: “ This verb,” says Dr. 
Robinson (Lex. N. T. s. v .), “ signifies to wash the 
entire body, not merely a part of it, like vltttcd.” 
Trench says : “ vl 7 ttco and vtyaaOcu almost always 
express the washing of a part of the body . . . ; while 
\ov(o , which is not so much ‘ to wash ’ as ‘to bathe/ 
and \ovaOcu , or in common Greek XovevOcu , ‘ to bathe 
one’s self,’ imply always, not the bathing of a part of 
the body, but of the whole.” The other passages cited 
merit careful attention, as confirming this account of 
the word. Baptism is a bathing. 

(3) From the circumstances mentioned by Nezv Tes- 
tament writers in connection with baptism: Mark 1:9; 
John 3:23; Acts 8:38, 39. It is sometimes said that 
the reason for resorting to places where there was much 
water was this, that the people and their animals might 
be supplied with a very necessary means of refreshment 
and cleanliness. But this reason is nowhere suggested 
by the sacred writers ; and it has never been shown that 
there was any such lack of water in Palestine, at that 

upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks ” ; Liddell 
and Scott, “ Greek- English Lexicon, based on the German work 
of F. Passow,” s. v.; Pape (W.), “ Handworterbuch der Griechi- 
schen Sprache,” s. v.; Robinson (E.), “Greek and English Lexi- 
con of the New Testament,” s. v.; Grimm (C. L. W.), “Lexicon 
Graeco-Latinum in Libros Novi Testamenti,” s. v.; “ Stephani 
Thesaurus Graecae Linguae,” tertia edito, and other works. 


362 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

time, that a multitude, even an army, could not subsist 
comfortably in any of the larger towns. Besides the 
natural sequence of thought in John 3 : 23 makes it 
almost certain that the abundant waters of Enon were 
convenient for administering the rite of baptism, and 
that the place was chosen on that account. “ But John 
also was baptizing ” — not holding great meetings, and 
preaching, but — “ baptising in Enon, near to Salim, 
because there was much water there: and they came 
and were baptized.” 1 Alford’s Trans. 

(4) From references to the ritual act , in stating its 
import : Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12. Says Lightfoot on 
Col. 2: 12: “ Baptism is the grave of the old man, and 
the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal 
waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections 
and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, 
quickened to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus baptism 
is an image of his participation, both in the death and 
in the resurrection of Christ. (See Apost. Const. III. 
17). The immersion is the dying with him; the emer- 
sion is the rising with him. For this twofold image, as 
it presents itself to St. Paul, see especially Rom. 6 : 3 
sq.” And this is but a sample of the concessions made 
by those who do not insist on immersion. A very large 
number of scholars, belonging to churches that do not 
practise immersion, might be quoted in support of the 
view, that the passages cited above presuppose immer- 
sion as the customary rite in the apostolic age. „ 

But, if it was the customary rite, what evidence is 
there that it was not the uniform rite? This evidence 
ought to be very clear, to be of any avail against the 
presumption in favor of a ritual act that was always 
meant to speak the same language. But, instead of 
being clear and stringent, this evidence is inferential and 
weak. 

1 See “ An American Commentary on the N. T.” at John 3 : 23. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 6 3 


(5) From the practice of u the early churches ” — 
meaning by this expression, the churches of the second 
century and the beginning of the third. This practice 
was evidently immersion ; and it furnishes a presump- 
tion of more or less force in favor of immersion as the 
apostolic rite. No one ought to rely upon it with en- 
tire confidence; for it may have been one of the earliest 
errors that crept into the churches, as Coleman suggests ; 
but it is not antecedently very probable that error would 
first enter at this door, since the Greek language was 
largely used in the West as well as in the East. 

Pouring was indeed allowed in case of sickness ; and 
Cyprian defends it on the plea of necessity. God will 
accept compendia , when the full service is impossible. 
But on whose authority does he say this? In such case, 
compendia are dispendia , as has been naturally sug- 
gested. 

( 6 ) From the practice of the Greek Church down to 
the present time. In proof of this statement, appeal 
may be made to many high authorities (for example, to 
Alexander de Stourdza, Russian State Councillor, and 
momber of the Greek Church ; to Dean Stanley, the 
historian of the Greek Church; and to Dr. Arnold, for 
many years a missionary in Greece). There may have 
been instances in which a priest has forborne to im- 
merse an infant; but these instances must have been 
extremely rare. The almost if not quite uniform prac- 
tice of the Greek Church is immersion ; and I do not 
think any native Greek would admit that ftairTifa means 
either to sprinkle or to pour. 

( 7 ) From the concessions of those who practise affu- 
sion or sprinkling. Among these may be named A. P. 
Stanley, G. F. Howson, F. W. Robertson, J. B. Mozley, 
Thomas Chalmers, E. Pressense, Edw. Reuss, Daniel 
Schenkel, H. A. W. Meyer, W. M. L. De Wette, A. 
Tholuck, L. J. Riickert, A. Neander, H. Olshausen, F. 


364 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

Bleek, H. Alford, C. J. Ellicott, J. P. Lange, J. B. Light- 
foot, J. H. A. Ebrard, K. F. A. Kalinis in his “ Die 
Lutherische Dogmatik historisch-genetisch dargestellt,” 
II. p. 319, ff. besonders p. 337, C. F. Keil. 1 

(8) It has been customary to mention also the use of 
the prepositions efc, iv , and etc, in connection with go- 
ing into the water, being baptized in the water, and com- 
ing out of the water, as confirmatory of the view that 
the sacred rite included an immersion of the candidate; 
and this, at least, may be said with confidence, that the 
use of these prepositions is precisely what might have 
been expected, if the rite was performed by immersion. 
When both et? and etc are used the inference is in- 
evitable : Acts 8 : 36-39. Nor is the circumstance that 
the element, water, is put several times in the dative 
without a preposition, thus denoting the means, — if, 
indeed, this is the true explanation of the dative in e-very 
such case, — any reason for denying that the rite was 
performed by immersion ; for baptism is with water, 
whether it is immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling. Yet 
we do not see that much reliance can be placed on the 
argument drawn from the use of the prepositions named 

1 Of special examinations the following may be named: Stuart 
(M.), “Is the Manner of Christian Baptism Prescribed in the 
New Testament?” Bib. Repository, Vol. III., p. 208 sq. ; Ripley 
(H. J.), “Reply to Stuart on Baptism”; Dale (J. W.), “Classic 
Baptism,” “Judaic Baptism,” “Christie and Patristic Baptism”; 
Ford (D. B.), “ Studies on Baptism with Review of J. W. Dale”; 
Carson (A.), “On Baptism”; Wieberg (A.), “On Baptism”; 
Conant (T. J.), “On the Meaning and Use of Bcurrlpeip in • 
Greek authors”; Crystal (J.), “A History of the Modes of 
Christian Baptism”; Ingham (R.), “Handbook of Baptism”; 
Gotch (F. W.), “A Critical Examination of the Rendering of 
the Word Bawrlpeiv in the Ancient, and Many of the Modern 
Versions of the New Testament”; Matthies (C. L.), “ Bap- 
tismatis Expositio, Biblica, Historica, Dogmatica ” ; Hof ling 
(W. F.), “Das Sacrament der Taufe”; Dressier (E.), “Die 
Lehre von der Heiligen Taufe.” 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


365 

above; though whatever bearing they have on the ques- 
tion is in favor, rather than against, the Baptist view. 

But the following objections have been urged by Dr. 
Edward Robinson against supposing that the word 
“Pcutt %cd” always retains its classical sense in the New 
Testament : — 

a. It is used in Luke 1 1 : 38, to signify ablution, or 
affusion, as may be seen from Mark 7:2, 4, 8 (cf. 2 
Kings 3:11). But, in this view, he differs from the 
ablest critics of Germany. Indeed, the references of 
Dr. Robinson prove nothing; because the circumstances 
are not described as similar. Couches, as well as smaller 
articles, were naturally plunged in water to cleanse them. 
If they included a frame, it was doubtless separable into 
parts, which could easily be immersed; but Tischendorf 
omits “couches ” in his last edition. 

b. He supposes that Acts 2:41 and 4 : 4 prove eight 
thousand persons to have been baptized in Jerusalem 
within a short period ; and that there was not water 
enough in the city to immerse, so many. We respond 
a. that there were pools in and around the city, large 
enough to immerse almost any number of persons in a 
few hours ; for Dr. Hackett, who was not given to 
exaggeration, and who had visited the city, remarks 
“ that the pools so numerous and large, which encircled 
Jerusalem . . . afforded ample means for the administra- 
tion of the rite ” ; and adds, that “ The habits of the East, 
as every traveller knows, would present no obstacle to 
such a use of the public reservoirs”; b. that a pool 
large enough for the immersion of one might serve for 
the immersion of five thousand in succession ; c. that 
five thousand, instead of eight thousand, was the number 
of believers in Jerusalem at the time referred to in Acts 
4:4; d. that it is by no means certain that three 
thousand were baptized on the day of Pentecost; yet 
the Apostles and their assistants could easily have bap- 


366 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

tized this number in a few hours. Indeed, immersion 
may be administered in a reverent manner, as rapidly 
as sprinkling or pouring . 1 

c. He urges that (Bclttt l ^00 was transferred, and not 
translated in the early Latin version; hence it did not 
mean the same as immergo. 

Reply. This transference of the word can be readily 
explained without supposing any difference of mean- 
ing between ( 3 cnrT%(o and immergo; for the Greek 
language was generally understood, and largely used 
during the first three centuries of the Christian era. 
Hence the word “fiaTrTL^oi),” first used to describe the 
act of Christian baptism, would naturally become well 
known; and, like the word “ev^apLcrTia” be retained, 
when other less important words were translated. 

But it must also be said that the earliest Latin version 
of the New Testament, of which we have any traces, 
was the one used by Tertullian in North Africa; and 
that in this version the Greek verb is translated by tingo 
or tinguo . 2 Tertullian also used the nouns, tinctio and 
intinctio, to denote baptism. These words point to im- 
mersion as the ritual act, especially when compared with 
mergo, immergo , lavo, and lavacrum, which he employs 
likewise ; but they suggest, at the same time, the idea of 
some sacred and mystical energy, imparted to the bap- 
tismal waters by the presence of the Holy Spirit, — the 
incipient doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 

d. He says that certain baptismal fonts of an early 
date were too small for the immersion of adults, and 
must, therefore, have been used for sprinkling or pour- 
ing. But it may be remarked, in reply, that the fonts 

1 “The Design of Baptism, with Other Baptismal Tracts for 
the Times/’ p. 112 f. ; Barclay (J. T.), “The City of the Great 
King”; Robinson (E.), “Biblical Researches,” etc., I., p. 323 f. ; 
Williams (George), “The Holy City.” 

2 See Ronsch (H.), “Das Neue Testament Tertullians.” 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 6 7 


examined by him were subsequently examined by Dr. 
Hackett, and pronounced large enough for the immersion 
of adults. Surely, then, they were absurdly large for any 
other mode of administering the rite in question. Be- 
sides, it is difficult to fix the date of these fonts. 

e. Others add to these objections the plea that the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit was conceived of and rep- 
resented as an effusion; and therefore baptism with 
water must have been performed by affusion. This 
argument has been put in the forefront of the con- 
troversy by some Pedobaptist writers. But it seems 
to us destitute of any force ; for the same operation of 
an invisible and spiritual agent may be represented by 
different figures of speech. And it is perfectly natural 
to represent a very abundant communication of the 
Spirit as being poured out from above, — from God, 
or from Christ; while, on the other hand, it might be, 
and it surely was represented by the word 

as encompassing the Apostles, and as being the very 
element or atmosphere of their new life. The two rep- 
resentations are distinct, but not inconsistent; for they 
present different sides of the same marvellous act. See 
Acts 2:17, 18, 33 ; also Isa. 44 13 (cf. Acts 1:4, 5 ; Joel 

3:1-5)- 

But is it not true that, with those who reject immer- 
sion, sprinkling is more frequent than pouring? And 
does e/c^e co signify to “ sprinkle ” ? Was the Holy 
Spirit “sprinkled” on the Apostles? Were not their 
souls encompassed and pervaded by his presence? Was 
not the Pentecostal miracle a gift of new powers rather 
than a purification, even if sprinkling were the proper 
symbol of any other purification than that by atoning 
blood ? 1 

f. As to the plea that Christianity is a spiritual faith, 
and therefore any thing like a scrupulous exactness 

1 See Hague (W.) in “Baptist Question,” p. 76 sq. 


368 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

in preserving the form of a rite is indefensible, we 
reply, 

First, That in symbolical language the form is essen- 
tial, for it expresses the meaning : the form of the rite is, 
largely, the rite, for the rite itself is a form ; and 

Secondly, That “ it is of the essence of disobedience 
and rebellion to assume to make commutations and sub- 
stitutions of duty, — to transfer obligation to where it 
would be less inconvenient that it should be enforced, 
and to affect to render, in the form of preferred and 
easier services, an equivalent for the obedience which the 
righteous and supreme authority has distinctly required 
to be rendered in that harder service which is evaded.” 1 

As to the formula which should be used by the 
administrator of baptism, we think it is virtually given 
in Matt. 28 : 19. Not that the words there recorded 
are necessary to the validity of the act, nor that the 
Saviour designed to have his words repeated as a pre- 
scribed form ; but that they express briefly and clearly 
what ought to be said by the administrator. The preposi- 
tion ei? before to ovo/jlcl signifies into or unto; and the 
telic clause signifies that the candidate enters publicly 
into a very close relation to the Holy Trinity, avow- 
ing himself a servant of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost. 

An abbreviated formula, mentioning only the name 
of Christ, may have been sometimes used by the Apos- 
tles. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5. But there is no 
certain evidence of this. From the time of Justin Mar- 
tyr, a. d. 130, the formula given by Christ was care- 
fully observed; and, we presume, it was by the Apostles 
themselves. It led perhaps to the long-continued prac- 
tice of trine immersion. 2 

1 Foster (John), “The Glory of the Age,” p. 70. 

2 See Crystal (J.), “A History of the Modes of Christian 
Baptism,” ch. VI. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 6 9 


2. The Significance of the Rite 

In determining the significance of baptism, our appeal 
must be to the language of the New Testament on this 
point, and to the natural import of the rite itself; for 
ritual acts are, to a certain extent, self-interpreting, and 
there can be no reasonable doubt that, in most instances, 
their true meaning lies on the face of them, — that they 
were chosen as being a sort of universal language, 
readily understood by men of every age and nation. 
Hence, where the natural language of the ritual act ac- 
cords with the explanation of it by the sacred writers, 
there remains no ground for doubt; assurance becomes 
doubly sure. And this is true in the present case. 

From looking at the ritual act, and at the language of 
Scripture, we remark 

(1) That it symbolizes the regeneration of the sub- 
ject , as being, on the one hand, a dying to sin, and, on 
the other, a rising to holiness: Rom. 6:4; Col. 2: 12. 

At the same time it symbolizes participation both in 
the death and the resurrection of Christ. See remarks 
quoted from Dollinger and from Messner, below. 

(2) That it commemorates the accomplished death 
and resurrection of Christ: Rom. 6:3; Col. 2: 12; Mark 
10:38, 39; Luke 12:50. 

Says Dr. Dollinger, “ St. Paul made this immersion a 
symbol of burial with Christ, and the emerging a sign of 
resurrection with him to a new life. ,, And Messner re- 
marks, with equal clearness, “ Peculiar to Paul is the manner 
in which he connects the two acts of the rite of baptism as 
then administered ; namely, the submersion and the emersion, 
with the idea of fellowship with Christ in his death and 
resurrection, — a view which, in this definite form, belongs 
to him alone. While the submersion symbolizes the putting 
off of the old man, the emersion from the water is an emblem 
-of the reception of a new divine life ; and, because the former 


37 ° 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


is considered by him as an effect of the death of Christ, the 
latter is brought into connection with the resurrection of 
Christ. Thus Paul connects the act of submersion with the 
death of Christ, and that of emersion with the resurrection of 
Christ, — a symbolism of the baptismal rite which has lost 
its significance with the disappearance of the rite as then 
observed.” 1 

The same explanation of the Apostle’s language may 
be found in the works of numerous Pedobaptist scholars ; 
and there is no good reason whatever for doubting its 
correctness. 

(3) That it represents this regeneration as a purify- 
ing change: Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26 (cf. 
1 Peter 3:21). To this part of the symbolism of baptism, 
those persons who reject immersion attach almost ex- 
clusive importance; and they maintain that this part of 
the meaning symbolized is set forth as clearly by sprin- 
kling as by immersion. But there is abundant reason to 
doubt whether biblical writers ever express the idea of 
purification by the sprinkling or pouring of mere water 
upon a person or object. 

The only passage where this seems at first sight to 
be the case is Ezek. 36 : 25, — “ Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all 
your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse 
you,” etc. But the words “ clean water ” should rather 
be “ pure water,” meaning the “ water of purification,” 
in which the ashes of the heifer of purification had been 
steeped. Num. 19:11-22 (cf. 8:5-22). 

Says Hengstenberg, “ The sprinkling with water has like- 
wise the shedding of blood for its foundation. It was done 
with such water only as had in it the ashes of the sin-offering 
of the red heifer.” (See Heb. 9:13, 14.) “It is very 
evident that there is an allusion in this passage to the 
Mosaic rites of purification; especially to the holy water, in 

1 Messner (H.), “Die Lehre der Apostel,” pp. 279, 280. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


371 


which the ashes of the red heifer were mixed, and which 
served as an antidote, first to the greatest of all defilements, 

contact with a corpse, — and then to defilements in gen- 
eral.” 

But washing or bathing in water is a natural symbol 
of purification ; and if Baptists have not insisted on this 
as often as on other ideas symbolized by immersion in 
water, it is perhaps due in part to a reaction of feel- 
ing against the exclusive reference made to it by Pedo- 
baptists; yet they have by no means failed to recognize 
this part of the meaning conveyed by the rite. 

Says Dr. Irah Chase, “ In baptism there is retained, in all 
its significancy, the idea of cleansing or purification ; for the 
water in which we are buried is a purifying element. Thus 
there is a figurative washing away of sins, — a putting off 
of the body of sinful propensities, and, as it were, a deposit- 
ing of it in the grave, — from which, in this emblem, we 
come forth as alive from the dead, to walk in newness of 
life, and at length to enter on the life everlasting.” 

This is but a sample of the language often used by 
Baptists. 

It may be added in this place, that baptism is emblem- 
atical of the candidate’s experience, — - an act of confes- 
sion by which his own conscience is obeyed and filled 
with peace: 1 Peter 3:21. It is fitly administered by 
regularly-ordained ministers of the gospel ; and, though 
its validity does not really depend on the spiritual or 
ecclesiastical standing of the administrator, it is highly 
important, for the sake of order, decorum, and a reverent 
performance of the rite, that the standing of the adminis- 
trator should be in all respects unexceptionable. 

If necessary , in order that the baptism of suitable can- 
didates be not omitted, a church may even select one of 
its lay members to administer the ordinance: but this is 
very rarely necessary. Only in extreme cases would it 
be wise to deviate thus from the usual order. We may 


372 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


also remark, that a baptism administered by a clergyman 
who has never been baptized himself may be valid for 
the candidate. The ordinance expresses the candidate’s 
entrance upon a new life, — his union with Christ, not 
with the administrator ; and, if it be reverently performed, 
need not be repeated. 

3. The Subjects of the Rite. 

On this point, Baptists differ more widely from other 
denominations than on the rite itself ; or, rather, the dif- 
ference between them and others on the former point 
is more important than the difference on the latter; for 
they hold that only believers in Christ are entitled to 
baptism, and that only those who give credible evidence 
of faith in him should be received to baptism. 

In proof of this, they appeal, — 

(1) To the great commission: Matt. 28:19; Mark 
1 6: 16. For it is believed that the verb translated 
“ teach,” in the former passage, means to “ make disciples 
by teaching,” even as Paul declares that “ God was 
pleased by the foolishness of preaching to save them that 
believe ”: 1 Cor. 1 : 21 ; and that the consecration by bap- 
tism is mentioned afterwards, because it was to be 
subsequent in fact, — first discipleship in heart, then a 
public profession of discipleship in baptism. 

But this interpretation has been called in question ; 
and it has been said that the participial clauses describe 
the way in which the duty expressed by the verb “ teach ” 
is to be performed : thus, “ Go make all the nations dis- 
ciples, by baptizing and teaching them all things which 
I have commanded you.” That this is not required by 
the use of language in the New Testament may be seen 
by consulting the following passages : Matt. 8:27; 9 : 33, 
35 ; 19:25; 21 : 10, 20; 26:8; also Matt. 17:14; 19 : 3 ; 
22: 16; Luke 6:35; Matt. 19:28; also Col. 3:16; Eph. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


373 


5 : 18-21 ; 6 : 17, 18 ; 1 Tim. 6 : 20 ; Acts 20 : 29, 30, 31, 37, 
38 ; 22 : 16 ; Joel 1 : 18 sq. ; 1 Cor. 15:58; 1 Tim. 1:12; 
Rom. 15 : 25 ; James 2:9; Luke 2:45; Acts 15:27; Heb. 
13: 13; 2 Peter 2:5; Matt, ig‘,22. 1 And that it is not 
the meaning which lies on the face of the passage may 
be proved by the impression which the passage makes on 
ninety-nine out of a hundred who read it, as well as by 
the course which the Apostles took in spreading the 
gospel. 2 Yet if the word translated “ teach ” be under- 
stood to signify “ make disciples/’ and the following 
participial clauses be understood to set forth in general 
the way of doing this, it is to be observed, — 

a. That no one becomes a “ disciple ” of another, unless 
it be by his own preference and choice. 

b. That such preference and choice presuppose a 
knowledge of the Master selected, and a willingness to 
be taught and trained by him. 

c. That baptism would then be the act by which 
discipleship was formally avowed and openly begun. 

d. That it would be an expression of incipient faith 
in Christ, including a purpose to be guided by him in 
all things. And 

e. That discipleship would be consummated only when 
the followers of Christ had been taught all things which 
he commanded. 

But this last point suggests the remark that a disciple 
is a learner, — not one who has learned all which the 
Master has to teach ; that a person is a disciple as soon as 
he accepts one as his teacher and guide. And this cir- 
cumstance is almost, or quite, decisive against the inter- 
pretation proposed. 

(2) To the practice of the Apostles and their contem- 
poraries: Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13; 9:18; 10:44, 47; 
16: 14, 15, 31, 33; 18:8. There should, it would seem 

1 Wieberg and Ingham, “ On Baptism/’ 

2 See Hoffmann (J. C. K. v.), “ Der Schriftbeweis, II., s. 164. 


374 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


from these portions of the New Testament, be no doubt 
as to the practice of the Apostles and those acting under 
their direction. Faith in Christ, with a radical change 
ot heart towards God, preceded baptism. But, if it 
should be thought by any that the Great Commission, 
as given by Matthew, embraces both baptism and teach- 
ing in the work of making men disciples of Christ, — a 
view which we reject, — it would still be evident, from 
the course pursued by the Apostles, that faith in Christ 
was required in order to baptism. Whatever knowledge 
must precede a hearty acceptance of Christ as Saviour 
and Lord must precede baptism and avowed discipleship. 

(3) To apostolic language concerning it: Rom. 6:3, 
4; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21. The language of Peter is 
a veritable crux interpretum. He says clearly enough 
what baptism is not, namely, “ a putting away of filth of 
flesh,” the emphasis being on the word “ flesh,” but more 
darkly what it is, — aWd avveihrjaews ayadrjs b repco- 
TTjfia ek 6eov — translated by Noyes, “ The earnest seek- 
ing for a good conscience toward God ” ; by Alford, 
“ The inquiry of a good conscience after God ” ; by the 
Bible Union Committee, “ The requirement of a good 
conscience toward God ” ; and in the common version, 
“ The answer of a good conscience toward God.” Ter- 
tullian appears to have had this passage in mind when 
he wrote (De Resur. Carnis) : anima non lavatione, sed 
responsione sancitur. “ The request of a good con- 
science ” is defensible. But any view of the passage is 
unfavorable to infant baptism ; for infants neither seek 
nor obey a good conscience in baptism. 

(4) To the usage of the church for upwards of two 
centuries. See “ Christian Review,” Vol. XVI., Dr. 
Ripley; and Vol. XIX., Dr. Chase; also “Baptist Quar- 
terly,” Vol. III., page 168 sq. In these articles it is 
shown that for more than two hundred years after Christ 
infant baptism, in the strict sense of the words, was not 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


375 


practised. The very few passages which have been sup- 
posed to assert or imply it are capable of a different 
interpretation, agreeing with other and clearer texts. 

But there are many persons who add to “ believers 
in Christ,” their children , as proper subjects of baptism. 1 
And they rely upon such statements as follow to justify 
their view : 

i. Baptism under the new covenant takes the place of 
circumcision under the old. 

Reply. If this were true, it would not follow that the 
natural offspring of believers should be baptized : for 
the initiatory rite might belong to natural offspring in 
one case, and to spiritual in the other; to babes, and to 
“new-born babes.” Being born of the flesh, and being 
born of the Spirit, may be prerequisite to circumcision 
and to baptism, respectively. And that this is really so 
we conclude 

(1) From the fact that God established the old cov- 
enant with Abraham and his natural seed: Gen. 17: 10- 
14; but the new covenant with Christ and a spiritual 
seed : Gal. 3:7, “ They who are of faith, these are the 
sons of Abraham ” ; 3 : 26, “ For ye are all sons of God 
through faith in Christ Jesus”; 1 Pet. 1:23, “Being 
born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, 
through the word of God, which lives and abides ” (Com- 
pare Jo. 3:3-7; 1 Cor. 4 : 15 ; Ja. 1:18; also Heb. 5 : 12- 
14; 1 Pet. 2: 12: Matt. 11 : 25). 

(2) From the fact that the subjects of each rite are 

1 See Wall (Wm.), “The History of Infant Baptism,” etc.; 
Gale (J.), “Reflections on Mr. Wall’s History of Infant Bap- 
tism,” etc.; Hibbard (F. G.), “Christian Baptism,” “Part First, 
Infant Baptism”; Ingham (R.), “The Theology of the Com- 
mission on the Subjects of Baptism,” and “Christian Baptism: 
its Subjects”; Hodges (W.), “Baptism tested by Scripture and 
by History”; Booth (A.), “ Pedobaptism Examined,” etc., Vol. 
II. of his work on baptism; Chase (I.), “Infant Baptism an 
Invention of Men.” 


37 6 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

carefully described, and are not the same. See Gen. 
17:10 sq. ; and Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12. The male 
children of Jews, and the male servants of Jews, with 
their male children, were to be circumcised; while be- 
lievers in Christ, both male and female, Jew and Gentile, 
were to be baptized. 

But, still further, it is evident that baptism did not 
take the place of circumcision in the apostolic church : — 

(3) From the fact that the rite of circumcision was 
practised by the Jewish Christians, together with baptism, 
for a considerable period. This is implied in the lan- 
guage of Acts 11:3 f . They that were of the circumci- 
sion contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men 
uncircumcised, and didst eat with them ” ; and of Acts 
15:1, “ Unless ye be circumcised after the custom of 
Moses, ye cannot be saved ”; (cf. Acts 16:3; 21:20; 
Gal. 2:12 f.). But a continued observance of circum- 
cision could have had no meaning, if baptism was under- 
stood to have taken its place. 

(4) From the fact that Paul, when opposing the cir- 
cumcision of Gentile converts, never hints that baptism 
takes its place. Says Neander, “ The dispute carried 
on with the Judaizing party on the necessity of circum- 
cision would easily have given an opportunity of intro- 
ducing this substitute into the controversy, if it had 
really existed.” 

2. Entire households were baptized by the Apostles; 
and we must suppose there were infants in some of them : 
Acts 16: 15, 33, 34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1 : 16 (cf. 16: 15, 17). 

Reply. There is no evidence, nor is it probable, that 
any members of these households were infants or unbe- 
lievers. The best modern interpreters have dropped this 
argument. 1 In “ The Design of Baptism with Other Bap- 
tismal Tracts for the Times,” Dr. Hackett says : 

1 See “ Results of the Latest Criticism in Regard to Infant 
Baptism,” by H. B. Hackett, D.D. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


377 


“ The passages of the New Testament, which have been 
mainly relied on as proving the existence of infant baptism 
in the time of the Apostles, are Acts 16:15; 18:8, and 
1 Cor. 1 : 16. No decision in Biblical criticism, not absolutely 
unanimous, can be considered as better established at the 
present time, than that of the utter insufficiency of these 
passages to prove, or to justify the practice referred to, as an 
Apostolic institution.” 

3. Christ blessed little children and said, “ Of such is 
the Kingdom of Heaven” ; 'and, if infants are saved by 
Christ, of course they are to be baptized (Mark 10 : 13-16 ; 
Luke 18: 15-17 ; Matt. 19: 13-15). It is not as believers 
in this life that they are saved. As believers after death 
they need no earthly sanctuaries or ordinances. 1 

4. Children are said to be holy by virtue of their 
parents' faith ; hence they must have been baptized (1 
Cor. 7 : 14). 

Reply. Paul’s argument, on the contrary, seems to 
prove that the children of believers were not, as such, 
baptized ; for he argues that it is not contaminating for 
a Christian to live in wedlock with an unbeliever, because 
it is not contaminating for him to live with his children. 
There could surely be no force in this to one whose chil- 
dren had all been brought into a covenant relation with 
God. The heathen companion and the baptized children 
would not have stood on the same level, would not have 
been in the same fold; and hence the propriety of asso- 
ciating with the latter could not prove the propriety of 
doing the same with the former. 2 

5. The Jews would have made great complaint, if 
Christianity had not admitted children to baptism. But 
we read of no such complaint; hence their infant seed 

1 Boardman (G. D.), “The Kingdom,” ch. vi., pp. 32-40. 

2 See Neander, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, Muller, Hackett, 
and others. 


378 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

were treated as well under the new covenant as under 
the old. 

Reply. The Jews who believed in Christ during the 
apostolic period continued for the most part to practise 
circumcision; and evidently regarded Christianity as a 
separate, additional blessing for those who believed in 
Christ. The new did not, in the apostolic age, displace 
the old ; the rites of the new did not supersede the 
rites of the old ; hence there could be no reason why 
Jews, more than others, should insist upon infant 
baptism. They were too much accustomed to associate 
particular rites with particular conditions, to be sur- 
prised that repentance and faith were made the con- 
ditions of baptism. Says Neander, “ Among the Jew- 
ish Christians, circumcision was held as a seal of the 
covenant; and hence they had so much the less occasion 
to make use of another dedication of their children.” 

6. The early Church admitted the children of believers 
to baptism ; hence it must have been an apostolic practice 
likewise. 

Reply. If reference be had to the first two centuries 
after Christ, the statement is incorrect ; if to a later period, 
it. has no force with Baptists, who believe that many 
erroneous practices began as early as the third century. 

It may be added in this place, 

(1) That the practice of infant baptism appears to 
have had its origin in the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion. So far as history casts any light on this point, the 
latter preceded the former, and sacramentalism led to 
child baptism. 

(2) That the practice of infant baptism sustains and 
extends the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. If the 
theory led to the practice, the practice evermore leads 
back to the theory, and is empty without it. 

(3) That the practice of infant baptism has made the 
union of church and state possible. Without this prac- 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 79 


tice, such a union would have been extremely improbable, 
if not impossible. 1 

4. The Relation of the Rite to John’s Baptism. 

Many writers have taken the position, that Christian 
baptism is entirely distinct from John’s baptism; while 
others have considered them virtually the same. There 
is something to be said for the former view, and some- 
thing also for the latter. 

For the former, it is urged, — 

(1) That John the Baptist belonged to the old dis- 
pensation , and , therefore , his baptism could not belong to 
the nezv. 

There is certainly evidence enough that he belonged 
to the old economy: Matt. 11 : 11, “ the least in the king- 
dom of heaven is greater than he ” ; and it may be that he 
belonged to the new. also. Certainly, both John and 
Christ passed their lives under the Mosaic law. But 
John lived to point men to Christ, the Lamb of God ; and 
his work had respect to the introduction of the new era 
rather than to the filling out of the old. It is, therefore, 
by no means certain that his relation to Judaism for- 
bade him to introduce, by divine authority, an ordinance 
which belonged to Christianity. 

(2) That he could not have administered baptism into 
the name of the Trinity. 

Perhaps not ; certainly he could not have used the for- 
mula which has been generally used by Christians; for 
this formula presupposes a fuller knowledge of the gospel 
than can be reasonably attributed to him. But if his 
words in baptizing were an epitome of his preaching, 
they must have implied allegiance to the Christ and the 
Spirit, as well as to the Father; for Luke testifies ex- 
pressly, that he “evangelized” the people (ch. 3: 18); 

1 Hovey (A.), “Evils of Infant Baptism,” p. 41 sq. 


3^0 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

and John bears witness to nearly the. same thing: John 
1 : 29 sq. 36 ; 3 : 25 sq., as well as Paul : Acts 19 : 4. 

(3) That baptism was sometimes repeated when the 
followers of John embraced Christianity , as preached by 
the Apostles after the day of Pentecost (Acts 19: 1 sq.). 
In the only instance of the kind recorded, “ the disciples ” 
had never heard “ whether there is a Holy Spirit ” ; and it 
is therefore difficult to believe that they had been bap- 
tized by John himself ; for John had taught his disciples 
to believe in him that should come after him, and de- 
scribed Jesus as one who should baptize them in the Holy 
Spirit. This appears to have been an important feature 
of his preaching; and therefore it is fair to presume that 
the disciples in question had not been taught and baptized 
by him. They had probably been baptized, without suit- 
able instruction, by some unenlightened follower of John ; 
and hence their baptism had no reference to Jesus as the 
Christ or to the Holy Spirit. 

But, on the other hand, it may be said 

a. That the ritual act was in both cases the same , 
representing the same inward change: Matt. 3:6 sq. ; 
Mark 1:4 sq. ; Luke 3:3 sq. ; 7:30; 20:3 sq. (cf. the 
senior Edwards, I., p. 163). 

b. That repentance towards God , and faith in the 
Messiah, as the Giver of the Holy Spirit, were required 
in both cases: Matt. 3:11 sq. ; Mark 1 : 7 sq. ; Luke 3:15 
sq. ; John 1 : 27 sq. ; Acts 19 : 4. It will be evident to 
those who study closely all the passages bearing on this 
point, that John invited none but renewed persons to his 
baptism. For (a) Repentance — ixeravoia — is a change 
of mind and heart, implying faith and love. By it one 
enters upon a new spiritual life. But was not the baptism 
which he administered unto or into repentance, — that is, 
a rite by which an impenitent man pledged himself to re- 
pent ? Such a rite would have been absurd ; for no im- 
penitent man can give a satisfactory pledge of repentance 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 8 * 

in the future. It is a present duty ; and a refusal to do it 
now vitiates every promise to do it by and by. (b) Both 
Mark and Luke say that John came preaching “ a baptism 
of repentance unto the remission of sins”: Mark 1:4; 
Luke 3:3; and the sins of unregenerate men cannot be 
forgiven. , His baptism symbolized the beginning of a 
new spiritual life, to which those who received it devoted 
themselves. (c) Both Matthew and Mark testify that 
“ confession of their sins ” was made by those who were 
baptized by John : Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; doubtless, then, 
it was required by him as one of the clearest evidences of 
a new heart. Men do not readily make public confession 
of “their sins,” while still foes to God. (d) “Fruits 
meet for repentance,” or rather, “ worthy of repentance,” 
were required of some : Matt. 3:6-12; Luke 3 : 7-14 ; and 
both from the expression itself and from the use made 
of it by Paul : Acts 26 : 20, we know that it refers to fruits 
which reveal a penitent or changed mind, rather than 
those which will lead to it. The passages referred to 
above give ample proof that John accompanied the re- 
quirement of repentance with that of a readiness to 
welcome the Messiah, who should baptize in the Holy 
Spirit. 

c. That baptism was not repeated when the follow- 
ers of John became disciples of Christ. Some suppose 
that many of the three thousand who were added to the 
church on the day of Pentecost had been disciples of 
John ; but, if so, there is no evidence of their re-baptism ; 
if so, there is no evidence of their being regarded as for 
the first time believers. 

They were probably said to be added, because now they 
were fully convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, and 
were at last ready to avow themselves his followers. 
There is no proof to be found in the New Testament, 
that those baptized by John were commonly re-baptized 
when they connected themselves with Christians. In 


3^2 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

Acts 18:24-28, the story of Apollos is told. He knew 
only the baptism of John ; but there is no hint of his re- 
ceiving Christian baptism. Aquila and Priscilla taught 
him the way of the Lord more perfectly, and that is all. 
“ In every instance, unless this be an exception, where 
the case of an individual is mentioned in the Acts, as in 
a state requiring baptism, this rite is administered, and 
prominent notice taken of it in the narrative.” Apollos 
was not baptized, because John’s baptism was virtually 
Christian baptism. 

d. That the Apostles themselves were, it is probable, 
baptized only with John's baptism. This seems to be a 
natural inference from the narrative in the first chapter 
of John, verses 35-49; at least so far as those were con- 
cerned who had been baptized by the harbinger of Christ. 
If any of the twelve had not been immersed by John, 
they were doubtless introduced into the fellowship of 
the earlier apostles by the rite of baptism. See John 
4: 1, 2. It is likewise to be noted, that Jesus himself sub- 
mitted to John’s baptism. 1 

e. That the nezv dispensation is represented as begin- 
ning zvith the work of John: Luke 16: 16; Acts 10: 36, 
37; John 1 : 22 sq. The first of these texts reads thus: 
“ The law and the prophets (were), until John — tie xpi 
9 Icoavvov ; since then the kingdom of God is preached, 
and every one presseth forcefully into it.” Meyer says, 
“ Since then (already by John himself) the good news of 
the Messiah’s kingdom has entered, and with what result ! 
Every one presses zvith force into it ” This is the obvious 
meaning of the words. 

The reasons for believing that Christian baptism began 
with that of John, and became more significant only as 
the truths which it represented were more fully revealed, 
seem then to be stronger than those which are supposed 
to show an essential difference between the two. 

1 Turretin, Loc. iii., Qu. xvi., p. 340 sq. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 8 3 


The Lord’s Supper 

In this case it is proper to consider the external rite, 
the import of the rite, and the proper communicants. 

i. The external rite. 

The institution of this rite by our Saviour has been 
described by four of the sacred writers, namely, Matthew 
26:26-29; Mark 14: 22-25; Luke 22: 19, 20; and Paul, 
1 Cor. 11 : 23-25. From these several accounts, we learn 
the following facts in respect to the elements employed 
in this rite, and the zvay in which they were used.: — 

(1) The elements were bread and zvine. The bread 
was doubtless unleavened ; yet this peculiarity is no- 
where referred to by Christ himself or by the sacred 
writers, unless in 1 Cor. 5:7, 8 ; and hence is not to be 
looked upon as significant. The wine is spoken of by 
Christ as “ this fruit of the vine ” : Matt. 26 : 29 ; Mark 
14:25; and it seems very desirable to make use of the 
same at the present day, diluted, as was then customary, 
with water. 

(2) The ritual use of these elements embraced a. the 
eucharistic prayers; b. the breaking of the bread and 
giving of the wine by the presiding officer ; and c. the 
eating and drinking of the respective elements by all the 
communicants. 

We do not suppose that the singing or chanting of 
Christ and his disciples, just before they went out into 
the Mount of Olives, was intended to be a part of the 
new ordinance ; for it is mentioned by neither Luke nor 
Paul in describing the institution of the Lord’s Supper, 
and we do not find it anywhere enjoined as a part of 
this ordinance. The words sung by Christ and his dis- 
ciples were probably the second part of the great Hallel, 
— namely, Psalms, 115, 118, — which the Jews were in 
the habit of singing after they had eaten the paschal 
lamb. It is, however, eminently proper to praise the 
Lord in song after partaking of the emblems of his death. 


384 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

It has been conjectured, that, in the age of the 
Apostles, the eucharistic prayers were offered by the 
whole body of the church in concert; but there is no 
sufficient reason for this conjecture. The language of 
Paul: 1 Cor. 10:16, “the cup of blessing which we 
bless,” would be perfectly natural, if all the members of 
the church were supposed to join in the prayers offered 
by the pastor, — a fact which they were accustomed to 
signify by saying “ Amen ” at the close. Notice the 
next clause, “ the loaf which we break ” : did the whole 
church break the loaf in common? If so, it must have 
been by carrying round the loaf and letting each com- 
municant break off a piece. 

2. The import of the Lord's supper. 

Since the elements represent the body and blood of the 
dying Saviour, the reception of them, — 

(1) Symbolizes the reception by faith of Christ cru- 
cified as the source and support of spiritual and eternal 
life: 1 Cor. 10: 16; cf. John 6: 51, 53, 54. This implies, 
of course, a belief in the doctrine of the atonement. To 
believe in Christ crucified as the perpetual source of life 
is to believe in the atonement as that source. It implies 
also union with the spiritual body of Christ, by virtue of 
receiving him. This is a subordinate but important fact 
represented by the joint partaking of the supper. It is 
the act of a family: 1 Cor. 10: 15-21. 

(2) Commemorates the atoning death of Christ, or 
Christ as the Lamb of God offering himself in sacrifice 
for sin : 1 Cor. 1 1 : 24, 26 ; 5:7. This office of the 
Lord’s Supper, it will be noticed, was very emphatically 
declared by the Saviour, “ Do this in remembrance of 
me ” : 1 Cor. 11 : 25, 26. Indeed, the commemorative im- 
port of this rite makes its symbolical meaning doubly im- 
pressive. That the emblems are also memorials , bringing 
the scenes of Calvary distinctly before the mind, adds 
greatly to their power in sustaining faith and love. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


385 


(3) Typifies the marriage supper of the Lamb, or, in 
other words, the future blessedness of believers in the 
presence of Christ: Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; 1 Cor. 
11:26; cf. Matt. 22 : 2 sq. ; 25:10; Rev. 19 : 7-9. Some 
theologians have doubted whether the Lord’s Supper is 
really typical of heavenly fellowship and joy; but the 
passages referred to are sufficient evidence that it is. 

a. It appears from several passages that the paschal 
lamb was, in some sense, a type, not of the Lord’s 
Supper, but of Christ himself: 1 Cor. 5:7; John 
19:36; (cf. Ex. 12:46; and Num. 9:12). But, if the 
paschal lamb bore some resemblance to Christ, the 
paschal supper must naturally have borne some resem- 
blance to the Lord’s Supper. The former, in fact, com- 
memorated the deliverance of the natural Israel from 
temporal ruin ; while the latter .commemorates the deliv- 
erance of the spiritual Israel from eternal ruin. As the 
Jewish people typified the true Israel, so likewise did 
many Jewish rites foreshadow Christian realities, but 
not Christian rites. The Passover was not a type of the 
Lord’s Supper — the type of a symbol. 

b. Breaking the bread and pouring out the wine are 
suggestive parts of the ordinance; for they increase its 
commemorative power by bringing the death of Christ 
more vividly to mind. This is lost by the Roman Catholic 
form. 

c. The papal custom of withholding the cup from 
laymen is not really authorized by the Word of God; 
though several expressions in the New Testament are 
appealed to as furnishing, at least by implication, this 
authority. For example, Acts 2 : 42 ; 20 : 7, 1 1 ; 1 Cor. 
11:27-29; but cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17, 21. 

d. The papal doctrines of transubstantiation, and sacri- 
fice of the mass are unscriptural. See Heb. 7 : 27 ; 9:26, 
28; 10: 10 (cf. Mai. 1 : 11) for conclusive proof of this 
remark. 


3 86 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


For the doctrine, see “ Canones et Decreta Concilii 
Tridentini,” p. 66, i : 

“ Si quis negaverit, in sanctissimse eucharistiae Sacramento 
contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem 
una cum anima et Divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, 
ac proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in 
eo, ut in signo vel figura aut virtute : anathema sit.” “ If 
any one denies that in the sacrament of the most holy eucha- 
rist both the body and the blood together with the soul and 
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and hence, the whole 
Christ, are truly , really, and substantially contained ; but says 
that He is in it, as in a sign or figure, or virtually: let him 
be accursed.” 

Yet Christ says expressly of one of the elements which 
he had consecrated, “ I will no more drink of this fruit 
of the vine ” etc. Thus he recognized what he gave 
them in the cup as “ this fruit of the vine,” and, of 
course, as merely a symbol of his blood, since he was still 
alive in their presence ; but not as his real blood. 

e. The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation is ex- 
ceedingly unnatural, and no more scriptural than the 
papal doctrine. Could the disciples have supposed the 
real body and blood of Christ present in the elements, 
bread and wine, which they received from him? It does 
not seem possible. Yet the Augsburg Confession says : 

“ Lutherans teach concerning the Lord’s Supper, that the 
body and blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed 
to those partaking at the Lord’s Supper, and they disapprove 
those who teach otherwise” (a. d. 1530), and the Formula 
of Concord says, “ We believe that in the Lord’s Supper the 
body and blood of Christ are verily and substantially present, 
and that they are truly distributed and taken along with the 
bread and wine” (a. d. 1579). 

f. The view which regards the elements as merely 
emblems of the body and blood of Christ rests upon 
a simple and obvious interpretation of this language. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 387 

See John 14: 6; 15 : 5; Luke 12:1; Heb. 10:20; Philem. 
12, and Gen. 41:26; Ex. 12: II. 1 

g. The New Testament nowhere prescribes when or 
how often this ordinance is to be observed. It was, 
however, in all probability, observed more frequently 
in the apostolic church than it is by Christians at the 
present day. Whether a more frequent observance of 
this rite is now desirable can only be determined by care- 
ful observation. 

3. The proper communicants. 

For the sake of treating this topic in a practical way, 
we offer the following questions and replies, namely : — 2 
(1) Should any except credible believers in Christ be 
invited to the Lord’s Supper f 

Replying in the negative, we appeal : — 
a. To the import of the ordinance itself. It is partly 
commemorative, “ This do in remembrance of me.” It 
is a memorial of the dying Redeemer. But those who 
have no true faith in Christ, who are at heart self-right- 
eous, who reject his proffered aid, cannot properly com- 
memorate his death. Again, it is partly symbolical, 
“ Take, eat; this is my body which is for you ” : 1 Cor. 
11 : 24. The act of eating and drinking the consecrated 
elements is made prominent ; and by it the communicants 
signify their reception of Christ as the support of their 
spiritual life. How, then, can any person who rejects 
the Saviour wish or dare to approach his table ? Or how 
can one who gives no satisfactory evidence of faith in 
Christ, or fellowship with him, be invited to his table? 

1 See “ Bib. Sacra” I., p. 245 sq. and Hovey (A.), “The Holy 
Supper in History and Scripture.” 

2 Arnold (A. N.), “Prerequisites to Communion,” i860; 
Hovey (A.), “ Close Communion” and “The Holy Supper,” Am. 
Bp. Pub. Society; Litton (G.), “Church of Christ,” p. 64. Ed- 
wards (J. Sen.), “On the Qualifications for Full Communion”; 
Pepper (G. D. B.), “Open Communion,” Bap. Quart., Vol. I.; 
Hall (R.), “Terms of Communion.” 


388 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

b. To the example of the apostolic churches. So far 
as this point is concerned, their practice seems to have 
been uniform. The sacred emblems were never offered 
to unbelievers. But is the example of churches under 
apostolic guidance of any weight in the present case? 
We believe it is ; for when Paul declares, with reference 
to a practice far less closely connected with the gospel 
than this, “We have no such custom, neither, the 
churches of God/’ he appears to regard this fact as a 
valid argument against it. Moreover, the practice now 
in question must have been established by the Apostles ; 
for they received the ordinance from Christ, and caused 
it to be observed in the primitive church. 

c. To the caution which Paul gave to the Corinthians. 
“ Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the 
bread, and drink of the cup,” — words which imply the 
need of special preparation for the ordinance. Whoever 
does not appreciate the sacrifice of Christ, and does not 
recognize his need of it as an atonement for sin, is un- 
prepared for the Lord’s Supper. If he partake, it will 
be unworthily, if he discern not the body. “ He will eat 
and drink judgment to himself 1 Cor. 11 : 27-29. 

(2) Should any except baptized believers be invited 
to the Lord's Supper f We reply in the negative, and 
justify our answer by an appeal : — 

a .To the relation of the two ordinances to each other' 
as symbols. Baptism symbolizes the beginning of the 
new life ; and the Lord’s Supper, its nourishment. The 
former represents a change from one spiritual condition 
into another, — putting off the old, and putting on the 
new, — death and resurrection ; while the latter repre- 
sents growth, — progress in a present condition. The 
one sets forth a single event ; the other, an ever-recurring 
duty and refreshment. 

As the life of faith must be originated before it can be 
nourished, so an ordinance which represents the incep- 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


3 8 9 

tion of this life must naturally precede one which repre- 
sents its existence and support. In baptism, the sinner 
publicly declares his allegiance to Christ; at the Lord’s 
table, he takes his place among the acknowledged friends 
of Jesus, and receives from him tokens of love and favor. 
By baptism he is formally qualified for the duties and 
privileges of citizenship; by the Lord’s Supper, he is 
formally recognized and honored as a citizen. 

b. To the practice of Christian churches in the apos- 
tolic age. We find no hint in the sacred record of the 
presence of unbaptized persons at the Lord’s table; but 
we do find that baptism was treated as the first great 
duty to be done after exercising faith, and that the 
eucharist, when noticed at all, is assigned to those who 
were already baptized. In no case is the Lord’s Supper 
put before baptism ; in no case are believers brought into 
the church, and afterwards baptized. 

But to this it has been objected (e. g. by Robert Hall), 
that some of the Eleven who were present at the institu- 
tion of the Supper had not been baptized ; and that none 
of them had received Christian baptism. In reply it may 
be said (a) that John’s baptism was substantially the 
same as Christian; (b) that several of the Eleven had 
presumably been baptized by John prior to their connec- 
tion with Jesus; (c) that all of them had probably been 
thus baptized, for John was sent expressly to prepare the 
way of the Lord; and, in default of evidence to the 
contrary, it may be presumed that men whose hearts had 
been prepared by his preaching were selected by our 
Saviour to be his personal attendants. Besides, the 
promptness with which they left all, and followed Christ, 
is favorable to this view, (d) That Jesus, by the hands 
of his disciples, baptized others who believed in him ; 
and, if it was his custom to have his followers baptized, 
it may be taken for granted that he did not make the 
case of the twelve an exception. He was, moreover, 


39© MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

himself baptized, — a fact which strengthens our convic- 
tion that his chosen were also baptized. 

(3) Should any hut those whose church-walk is 
orderly he invited to the Lord's Supper ? No persons, 
we reply, but those who are members of some Christian 
church, whose deportment agrees with the gospel of 
Christ, and who strive together for the faith of the 
gospel, should be invited to the communion. In support 
of this position, we remark, — 

a. That becoming connected with a Christian church 
naturally precedes partaking of the eucharist. By bap- 
tism, one avows himself a servant and soldier of Christ. 
But the army of Christ is made up of different com- 
panies, — one here, another there; and a man can have 
no regular connection with it, unless he joins one of 
these companies, or, in other words, a particular church. 
Uniting with a local church is therefore the natural 
sequence or counterpart of the baptismal vow. Hence, 
baptism is often called the door into the church; and 
membership is supposed to follow it as a matter of 
course. Ordinarily it should do so, and thus precede 
admission to the Lord’s Supper. The latter is to be 
repeated till the close of life ; while the former, — unit- 
ing with a Christian church, — is, like baptism, an act to 
be performed but once, unless a repetition is made neces- 
sary by local changes. 

b. That the Lord's Stepper is a church rite , and should 
therefore , he restricted to church members in good stand- 
ing. It was evidently meant to be observed, not by indi- 
vidual Christians at will, nor by irresponsible companies 
of believers, but by the churches of Christ as such. 

This view is justified by the language of Paul to the 
Corinthians: 1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:18-34. Several 

points are fixed by these words of the Apostle; for 
example : — 

(a) The Corinthian Christians were evidently accus- 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


39 1 


tomed to meet together to observe the Lord’s Supper. 
No less than four times, within the space of a few verses, 
does Paul connect their coming together in one place with 
the celebration of the eucharist. To do this seems to 
have been the avowed and principal object of their as- 
sembling. 

(b) They could not properly observe it without 
coming together. This is implied. Many things could be 
done by Christians separately and at home. “ Have ye 
not houses to eat and to drink in?” ‘‘If any man is 
hungry, let him eat at home ” ; but it does not seem to 
have entered the Apostle’s mind that the Lord’s Supper 
could be eaten at home. 

(c) They came together “ in church,” to observe the 
Lord’s Supper. When Paul wrote his first letter to the 
Corinthians, the word i/c/c\r)aia had already become the 
appropriate designation of an organized body of Chris- 
tians; and, in the passage before us, it must be used in 
this sense, — a sense which it generally has in this 
epistle. Hence the words iv i/c/cXrjo-La signify “ in 
church form or capacity,” and show that the Corinthian 
believers celebrated the eucharist as a church. 

In no other instance has an inspired writer spoken at 
length of the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper in 
the apostolic churches. If the New Testament anywhere 
shows with sufficient clearness the practice of those 
churches which were planted and trained by the Apostles, 
it is in this letter; and, in this letter, the ordinance is 
represented as observed by the church as such. 

(d) Looking back from this, the fullest account of the 
eucharist in the New Testament, we find a brief reference 
to it in Acts 20:7: “ And on the first day of the week, 
when we were assembled to break bread,” etc. That 
there were disciples in Troas is not denied ; and that 
they were a regular church is commonly admitted. See 
Acts 16:8; 2 Cor. 2: 12, 13 (cf. Acts 14: 23; Tit. 1:5). 


392 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

(e) Going back still further, we find another record 
in Acts 2:41, 42. The Christians here spoken of were 
already baptized; they were under the guidance and 
teaching of the Apostles ; they met together almost daily 
for social worship; they provided for their poor with 
great liberality ; and they were living in the same city. 
Hence they were virtually, if not formally, a Christian 
church. If not, when did they become such a body? 

Later on in the Acts, they are habitually spoken of as 
“ the church at Jerusalem,” yet with no account of their 
formal organization. 

But it may be said, they did not meet together and 
observe the Lord’s Supper as a church ; for they are 
described as “ breaking bread from house to house.” In 
reply, it may be remarked, that the circumstances of the 
church at Jerusalem were peculiar. The disciples of 
Jesus could use neither temple nor synagogue for any 
service distinctively Christian. Meyer, De Wette, 
Alford, Bengel, and others, think that tear olrcov means 
a private house, or a house of their own, as distinguished 
from the temple. 

But even if they had no house large enough to receive 
them all, and therefore met in several places to break 
bread, — one or two of the Apostles presiding over each 
assembly, — this provisional arrangement would not have 
caused the Holy Supper to be esteemed a family or social 
rite; for only those who had been baptized, and were 
walking together in the faith, partook of it. The em- 
blems were not carried out of the church as an associated 
body of believers, nor were they used at pleasure by 
families, or groups of brethren. 

(f) Finally, we come to the institution of the Supper 
by our Saviour himself. There were doubtless many 
Christians in Jerusalem at the Passover when the Supper 
was instituted ; but they were in no proper sense a 
church, — a distinct responsible body, — called out from 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


393 


the rest of the nation, and acting together as the servants 
of Christ. “For the Greek word i/cfcXrjaLa, which ex- 
presses the idea of evoking, calling out, expresses also the 
idea of convoking, calling together, and is, therefore, 
most applicable to a Christian church as a select, organ- 
ized body, called out by direct choice from the mass of 
men, and called together by divine authority as a spiri- 
tual corporation.” (Alexander.) On the other hand, 
the little band of disciples to whom the Supper was first 
administered was essentially such a body. They had 
been summoned to his side by the Saviour, were his rec- 
ognized and constant followers, were under his instruc- 
tion, were the champions of his cause, had a common 
purse and treasurer, were united in belief and action, and, 
in a word, were a responsible community, separated from 
the world, and associated together in the service of 
Christ. 

(g) It is also to be observed, that when we read of 
the baptism of single individuals, or even of house- 
holds, — as of Paul, of the Ethiopian eunuch, of Lydia, 
of the Philippian jailer, and of Crispus at Corinth, — 
there is never any allusion to the Lord’s Supper as fol- 
lowing the baptism ; but, when great numbers were 
baptized on the day of Pentecost, there sometimes is a 
reference to the Supper as presently observed. 

(h) That this ordinance appears to have been re- 
stricted by the early Christians to church members. Says 
justin Martyr , 1 “ This food is called among us evxapia- 
TLa, of which no one is allowed to partake who does not 
believe that what we teach is true, and has not been 
bathed the bath for the remission of sins and unto re- 
generation, and does not live as Christ has enjoined.” 
Three prerequisites are here laid down, — faith, baptism, 
and an orderly walk; and there is abundant evidence 
that these were insisted upon by Christians of every name 

1 “First Apology,” ch. 66 (a. d. 138-9). 


394 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


for a long time. The Didache also makes baptism pre- 
requisite to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. 

As the eucharist is a church ordinance, Baptists gener- 
ally hold that none but members of the church observing 
it are strictly entitled to partake; and that none can 
properly be invited to join with them who could not be 
welcomed, without change of views, to full membership. 
They also hold that those who are giving, and are 
pledged to give, the weight of their influence against 
what is believed to be essential to Christian obedience, 
cannot properly be received into its fellowship. If ad- 
mitted, they would sow dissension, and thus prove them- 
selves “ heretics ” in the primitive sense of the term. 

But members of Pedobaptist churches steadily affirm 
and teach by their ecclesiastical position, that infant 
sprinkling is, in effect,* Christian baptism ; or else that 
baptism is not prerequisite to full membership and an 
orderly walk in a Christian church. In either case they 
throw the whole weight of their example against the 
practice of Christian baptism, — a practice which, in the 
judgment of Baptists, is essential to Christian obedience. 
How, then, can their church- walk be indorsed as orderly ? 
If the members of a Baptist church were, in some other 
way, to act as decisively against this doctrine and prac- 
tice, they would justly be esteemed by their brethren 
subverters of the truth, and originators of division. 
See Rom. 16: 17; and cf. Titus 3:10; Gal. 5: 12; 1 Cor. 
1 : 10. 

But if a Baptist church ought to withdraw the hand of 
fellowship from members who set themselves firmly 
against the duty of obeying a plain command of Christ, 
it surely has no right to offer this hand to such persons 
when united to another church, or to any persons who 
persistently assail the duty in question. If communion 
at the Lord’s table were the sign of Christian fellowship 
merely, the case would be different; but such a sign 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


395 


it can never be while, besides faith, baptism and an 
orderly church-walk are the scriptural terms of admis- 
sion to the Lord’s Supper. 

It may now be remarked, that Baptists heartily 
acknowledge both the duty and the privilege of Christian 
fellowship with all who love the Lord, and approve of 
denominational cooperation if, and so far as, it requires 
no one to disregard his convictions as to the paramount 
claims of Christ. To “ love the truth and peace ” is 
their watchword (Zech. 8: 19). 

III. Effect of Church Life 

The power of church life may be discovered in the 
spirit of obedience to Christ which it cultivates; in the 
practice of social worship which it maintains; in the 
increase of Christian knowledge which it secures; in 
the watchfulness and consistency which it promotes ; 
in the labor for others which it organizes and stimulates. 
We must give attention to each of these points. 

1. It cultivates a spirit of obedience to Christ. For it 
requires, at the outset, a solemn act of obedience, — a 
public profession of faith in Christ, and allegiance to 
him. No act in a Christian’s life is adapted to fill his 
mind with greater awe and thankfulness than that of 
being buried with Christ in baptism. It is an act never 
to be repeated, deliberate, irreversible; and, by its very 
solitariness, it lays hold of his imagination, and repeats 
its lesson again and again to the close of life. Besides, 
there is self-denial in it ; the offence of the cross has not 
ceased ; and, if it clings to one act of obedience more 
than to others, that act is baptism. Perhaps this was 
intended by the Saviour as one check to a rash profession 
of faith. 

In a less marked degree, church life is, from first to 
last, a school of obedience. It must be continued when 


396 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

the affections languish, when doubt creeps into the heart, 
when courage wanes, because it is commanded. It must 
be persisted in against the opposition and contempt of the 
world, because it is commanded. And, by this obedience, 
it cultivates an open, manly spirit, — the heroic virtues ; 
for, in church life, the Christian has his place apart from 
the world, under the banner of his Lord ; and, after a 
time, obedience becomes easy. 

2. It maintains the practice of social worship. And, 
by social worship, we mean all worship in connection with 
others. It will then be in place to speak briefly of the 
duty and benefits of social worship. 

This form of worship promotes growth in grace : — 

( 1 ) By enkindling higher devotion to God in the 
heart. We are beings of sympathy, easily affected by 
the feelings of those around us. Hence religious emo- 
tion is increased by contact with religious emotion. 

(2) By bringing into livelier exercise brotherly love. 
“ The sight of the eye affects the heart.” We do not 
often feel a very deep love for those who are strangers to 
us. As a rule, we love our fellow-Christians, as such, 
in proportion to our knowledge of their Christian life and 
experience. 

(3) By securing a special blessing from God. “ If 
two of you shall agree on earth concerning any thing 
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my 
Father who is in heaven ; for, where two or three are 
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst 
of them”: Matt. 18: 19, 20. United prayer and wor- 
ship entitle us to expect signal favors from God through 
Christ. 

It is not, indeed, easy to overstate the spiritual benefits 
of social and public worship to believers; yet for this 
they are indebted to the Christian church. It preserves 
multitudes from apostasy; it stimulates multitudes to 
higher activity; it unites the moral life and force of 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


397 


many persons ; it augments their faith, love, hope, zeal, 
and thereby the efficiency of their prayer. 

3. It secures an increase of Christian knowledge. 
This it does by the regular preaching of the gospel, 
which it supports; by the study of God’s word, which 
this preaching induces; by the vivid representation of 
Christian truth, — central, vital truth, in the ordi- 
nances. 

4. It promotes , by its discipline , ivatchfulness and con- 
sistency. Many a Christian has been saved from apos- 
tasy by the consciousness of being under the eye of the 
church, and liable to its discipline ; and many a one has, 
doubtless, like the incestuous man at Corinth, been led 
to repentance by solemn exclusion from the church. 

5. It organizes and stimulates labor for the good of 
others. This is a great end of church life. Thus asso- 
ciated, Christians can act with more success in diffusing 
the gospel and saving men; and the more effectually 
they are able to labor, the more earnestly will they do so. 
Success stimulates effort; numbers do the same. There 
is, or should be, in every church, a kind of esprit de corps 
which excites a degree of enthusiasm in the several mem- 
bers, animating them to greater boldness and activity. 
But seeking a high and holy object, as the honor of 
Christ and the salvation of men, is always beneficial to 
the moral nature of him who seeks it. Hence church 
life tends to sanctify the believer’s heart; to render him 
more unselfish, hopeful, magnanimous. And it is well 
to remember that the conscious motive of Paul in preach- 
ing Christ to the Gentiles, was not his desire for his own 
growth in grace, but rather his love of Christ and of 
mankind. He wished to save men, and the love of Christ 
constrained him to preach to them the gospel. Churches 
are constituted for the same purpose. Their highest 
function is to bring men to Jesus Christ as their Saviour 
and Lord. The order, the ritual, the worship, the co- 


398 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

operation of church members are sacred, because they 
contribute to the honor and sway of the Name that is 
above every name, and the highest encomium which can 
be paid to Christian churches is that they enable their 
members to do more than they otherwise could for the 
evangelization of the world. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE LORD’S DAY 1 

I. The Duty of Keeping the Lord’s Day 

/^\F the several theories maintained by Christians as 
to the Lord’s day, the following deserve particular 
notice : — 

1. That men are under no obligation to keep it by 
abstaining from secular toil; either because reason and 
Paul unite in declaring that all days are alike, — a view 
which we need not pause to refute, or because the 
fourth commandment of the decalogue and the original 
appointment of the Sabbath require all men to keep the 
seventh day of the week holy, — a view which is incon- 
sistent with the language of Paul in Col. 2:16; Gal. 
4:9, 10; and Rom. 14:5; with the testimony of Chris- 
tian writers, like Justin Martyr, as to the practice of 
the early churches ; and with the principle laid down by 
Christ, that the Sabbath was made for man, — that is, 
for his highest good. 

2. That by the authority of Christ, the first day of the 
week has been substituted for the seventh, — the day 
being changed, but the command to observe it by abstain- 
ing from all secular labor remaining in full force. The 
defenders of this theory insist that the decalogue is bind- 

1 Hessey (J. A.), “Sunday/’ etc., 4th ed. 1880; Gilfillan (J.), 
“The Sabbath,” etc.; Cox (R.), “The Literature of the Sabbath 
Question”; Waffle (A. E.), “The Lord’s Day”; S almond (C. 
(A.), “The Sabbath”; Hengstenberg (W.), “The Lord’s Day,” 
Eng. trans., 1853; S chaff -Herzog, art. “Sunday”; “Encyclo- 
paedia Britmni ca,” 9th ed., art. “Sunday.” 

399 


400 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ing on Christians, from the first command to the last, 
though God has seen fit to ordain that the Lord’s day 
shall take the place of the Jewish Sabbath. This theory 
has prevailed extensively in England, Scotland, and the 
United States; and a great deal may be justly said in 
its favor. 

Yet it does not seem to be entirely consistent with the 
language of Paul in the passages cited above, with the 
views of fair-minded Christian writers in the early 
church, or with the general character of the new dis- 
pensation. It appears to emphasize unduly the legal side 
of the question, attaching more importance to the fourth 
commandment of the decalogue, as directly applicable to 
the Lord’s day, than is altogether safe. The adherents 
of this view are careful to call the Lord’s day the Chris- 
tian Sabbath, — a designation which is never given to it 
in the New Testament, or by any Christian writer of the 
first three centuries. 

3. That the duty of keeping the Lord’s day rests en- 
tirely on the practice and authority of the church. Many 
who accept this theory believe that the practice began in 
the days of the Apostles ; but they do not admit that this 
circumstance is of decisive importance. They may be 
divided into two classes; namely, those who concede to 
the church authority in such matters, and those who are 
willing to comply, in some measure, with a good and use- 
ful custom. 

This theory overlooks the real grounds of Christian 
obligation in this matter, and tends to great laxity in 
observing the Lord’s day. Where it prevails, recreation, 
if not business, will be sure to encroach upon the proper 
use of the day, as a period for religious worship and 
instruction, and thus defeat the chief end of its appoint- 
ment. 

4. That the duty of consecrating the Lord’s day to 
religious uses rests upon the authoritative example 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


401 


of the Apostles : Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10; 
Heb. 10 : 25. 

Confirmed (1) by the practice of the early churches 
(see the works quoted supra). 

(2) By the Sabbath-keeping enjoined on the children 
of Israel: Ex. 20:8 sq. * 

(3) By the original sanctification of the seventh day: 
Gen. 2:2, 3 ; and 

(4) By the words of Christ , affirming that the Sab- 
bath was made for man: Mark 2 : 27. 

The practice of the early churches tends to establish 
very firmly the distinction between the Lord’s day and 
the Jewish Sabbath. The fourth command of the dec- 
alogue proves that the Israelites needed to have one day 
in seven set apart from secular toil to religious service; 
the primeval institution of the Sabbath shows that it was 
meant for all mankind; and the reason of its existence, 
declared by Christ, fully accounts for the change from the 
last day of the week to the first, made by the Apostles. 
For, since the resurrection of Christ, the first day of the 
week takes precedence of every other in religious interest, 
and it is practically impossible for Christians to feel as 
deep an interest in the finishing of the work of creation 
as they do in the finishing of the work of atonement. 

It should be borne in mind, that when God rested from 
creating, — a kind of secular work, — he entered at once 
on the moral and religious training of man; so that Jesus 
could say, “ My Father worketh until now, and I work ” : 
John 5: 17; that is, even on the Sabbath, and perhaps, 
especially on the Sabbath. But this primeval training 
was carried forward, chiefly, by means of the light which 
shines from creation, — a light which has proved insuffi- 
cient for fallen man. Not the knowledge of creation, 
but the knowledge of redemption, provided by God, is 
what sinful man most needs. Hence the day which com- 
memorates a completed atonement, ready to be applied by 


402 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the gospel and grace of Christ, is the day of divinest 
significance and greatest spiritual influence for sinful 
men. 

This theory is in perfect accord with the doctrine of 
Paul, and with the character of the new dispensation. It 
recognizes the very important bearing of the primeval 
and Jewish Sabbath on the question of keeping the Lord’s 
day; and it assigns a proper place to the inspired guid- 
ance of the churches by the Apostles. 

II. The Manner of Keeping the Lord's Day 

It has been shown above, that it is the duty of 
Christians to consecrate the day to religious uses. But 
how strictly? Must they be governed by the same rules 
as were the Jews in abstaining from every kind of secular 
toil? Or have they greater freedom in this respect? It 
must doubtless be conceded that much is left to their 
own judgment and conscience, to their love of Christ and 
desire to win men to his service. But with the general 
duty made plain, and with the law of love written upon 
their hearts, it is to be presumed that they will keep the 
day very much as Christ kept the Jewish Sabbath, finding 
no occasion for secular business or idle self-indulgence. 
Hence, it may be remarked that their employments on 
the Lord’s day should be : — 

1. Those which are either embraced in religious ser- 
vice, or are immediately prerequisite to it. By religious 
service is meant not only worship in the sanctuary, or 
elsewhere, but all labor for the salvation of men. 

2. Those which are evidently necessary for the pres- 
ervation of life and health. A tender Christian con- 
science will guide one to the right application of this 
general rule, especially, with the aid of Christ’s example. 

3. Those which are required to prevent or to relieve 
severe suffering in man or beast. Particular applica- 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


403 


tions of this rule must also be left to the enlightened 
conscience. If it is honestly accepted, and interpreted 
in the light of the Saviour’s conduct, few mistakes will 
be made. 

The idea of rest was more predominant in the Jewish 
law than it should be in Christian practice ; for spiritual 
joy and activity are characteristic of the followers of 
Christ. Their religion is not conservative, chiefly, but 
aggressive; it should go forth with joyful step, conquer- 
ing and to conquer. 

In saying that it is the duty of Christians to keep the 
Lord’s day in the manner specified, it is meant that all 
who have a knowledge of the Christian religion ought to 
do this ; but it is not meant that some may compel others 
to do it. As to the Lord’s day as a civil institution, some- 
thing will be said in “ Christian Ethics ” ; but, in this 
place, reference is made solely to the personal obligation 
of every man to do the will of God in this respect. 

Returning to a consideration of the end or object of the 
Lord’s day, we are called to a study of the relation of 
the day to Christian life, and especially to that life as 
one of service to mankind. 

(1) The saying of Jesus, that “ the Sabbath was made 
for man, and not man for the Sabbath ” furnishes our 
starting point for a study of the Lord’s day as a blessing 
to Christians. Divisions of time are of no value to God ; 
they are only valuable to mankind as means of improve- 
ment. Looked at as a section of time, one day of the 
week is the peer of another, and no day is precious, except 
as it provides an opportunity for increase of good in 
moral things. 

(2) Hence the words of Paul, “One man esteems 
one day above another, another esteems every day alike. 
Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind,” are 
in place here. A clear conscience is better in the sight of 
God than any recognition or non-recognition of particular 


404 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


times and seasons. These are sacred to God when, and 
only when, they are helps to men in Christian service. 

(3) But there are many ways of serving God, some 
of which require, while others do not, set times and well- 
concerted action. Social worship must be occasional, 
because private duties claim a larger part of everyone’s 
time. Farming and manufacturing and building are nec- 
essary to the welfare of society. Children must be fed 
and clad and taught, and with a majority of mankind a 
great part of life must be given to the care of the body. 

(4) Yet the body is not all, and its claims must not 
silence those of the spirit. If the days of one’s life are 
to bear the choicest fruits in character and influence, 
some of them must be set apart to religious work. For 
order is heaven’s law, and the soul will not have its 
opportunity, as well as the body, unless time is afforded 
it. Its claims should be accounted more exigent than 
those of the body, and fixed periods allotted to a fulfil- 
ment of them. If one day in seven is recognized as the 
minimum of time which ought to be consecrated to spir- 
itual service, secular cares should not be suffered to 
encroach upon it. This we are able to say from our 
knowledge of the human mind, without appealing to the 
word of God. 

(5) Slow, indeed, would be the progress of the soul 
in knowledge and piety, if its claims were forgotten six 
days out of seven. But this is not supposed to be the 
case. Religion is to pervade the whole life. Every kind 
of work is to be ennobled by it. But one day in seven 
is to be filled with religious activities. Study, medita- 
tion, prayer, social worship, and, above all, systematic 
cooperative labor for the religious life of the world, are 
to give new tone and energy to personal faith on the 
Lord’s day, and through the concentrated work of that 
day to carry the leaven of godliness into every other day 
of the week. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 405 

(6) But the relation of the Lord's day to Christian 
life becomes most evident when we study Christianity 
as an aggressive religion, when we look upon believers 
as uniting together for the evangelization of all mankind. 
An enterprise so vast, requiring the wisest cooperation, 
the most strategical, persistent, and heroic use of all the 
powers of Christendom, cannot be achieved without 
united prayer and consultation. The intelligence and 
enthusiasm of believers cannot be sustained without 
regular seasons of worship. The rushing torrents of 
worldliness cannot be arrested without the help of social 
worship. And wise plans of cooperation cannot be 
formed without time for consultation. All these are 
provided for in the Lord’s day. 

(7) It is a joyful day. It commemorates the victory 
of Christ over death and the grave. It is prophetic of 
conquest, — until every knee shall bow and every tongue 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God 
the Father. Such a day should be full to overflowing 
of inspiration to missionary service. It should be a 
trumpet call to every timid believer to gird on his armor 
and place himself in the ranks, ready to assail the powers 
of darkness which have so long ruled the world. It 
should remind the wavering disciple of the last order 
issued by his Risen Lord before going up on high : “ All 
authority was given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, 
therefore, and disciple all the nations, baptizing them 
unto the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things what- 
ever I commanded you: and, behold, I am with you all 
the days unto the consummation of the age.” 

(8) The Lord’s day is first of all intended to serve the 
religious nature of Christians, and, through them, that 
of all mankind; for to all mankind they are to preach 
the gospel. But while its supreme mission is to the souls 
of men, it is a benefactor of their bodies also. The rest 


406 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

from customary labor which it brings is undoubtedly 
favorable to bodily vigor and endurance. For body and 
soul are closely united. Whatever benefits one of them 
benefits, as a rule, the other also. Changing one’s course 
of thought for a day every week is certainly conducive to 
health and happiness, as well as to largeness of mind. 
Nevertheless, the great reason for the Lord’s day is moral 
and religious, and, much as we may emphasize the duty 
of resting from ordinary labor on that day, we should 
insist far more strongly on the duty of making it a holy 
day, rather than a holiday. 


CHAPTER V 


PERIOD OF GROWTH AND SERVICE 

I. Perfection of Christian Service 

T S this ever reached in the present life? And if it is, 
by what act or process is so great a blessing attain- 
able? These are not idle questions; for there are many 
Christians who think they can or do render such service, 
some indeed who profess to have passed a decade of years 
without sinning against God or man. 

In seeking to answer these questions it is necessary to 
bear in mind two things : 

1. That perfect service presupposes a perfect heart 
back of it ; for “ out of the heart are the issues of life.” 
The rightness or wrongness of human conduct is deter- 
mined by the ultimate end or aim of the soul. If per- 
fect love is wanting, perfect service is impossible. 

2. That if perfect service is rendered by any human 
being, except Jesus Christ, in this life, we must learn the 
fact from the Bible rather than from our own experience. 
For in order to infer from our own experience that our 
inward life is perfect, we must compare it with some 
standard, say the inward life of Christ, and must also 
know that our moral discernment is perfect. One of the 
most difficult things in the world is to know ourselves, 
to judge ourselves impartially. 

But what do the Scriptures teach? 

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is 
faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and cleanse 

407 


408 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

us from every unrighteousness. If we say that we have 
not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in 
us” : i John i : 8-10 ; cf. James 3:2; Rom. 8 : 10-13 ; Gal. 
5:17; Phil. 3: 12; Matt. 6: 12; Mark 10: 18; see also 
1 Kings 8 : 46 ; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7 : 20. It is to be ob- 
served that, in the eighth verse, John puts himself in 
the same class with his Christian . readers, and that he 
employs a verb in the present tense, thus referring to the 
present state of believers ; also, that, in the ninth verse, 
he associates himself with those who should seek forgive- 
ness ; and that, in the tenth verse, he uses the perfect tense 
to describe that which has come over from the past into 
the present. 1 

3. Yet it has been thought by some to be irreconcilable 
with other statements of the same epistle ; for example, 
3 : 9 ; 5 : 18 : “ Every one who has been begotten from 
God doeth not sin, because his seed remaineth in him; 
and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten from 
God.” “We know that every one who has been begotten 
from God sinneth not; but he that was begotten from 
God keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him 
not.” 

This language is, no doubt, remarkable; but, if it 
proves that any Christian lives without committing sin, 
it proves that every Christian does the same. And, if it 
affirms that all Christians live without sinning, it con- 
tradicts the testimony of John himself, as well as the 
whole tenor of Scripture. See, for example, 1 John 2:1; 
5:16; and Gal. 2:11. This, therefore, cannot be its true 
meaning, however difficult it may be to ascertain that 
meaning. 

4. But it has been supposed to signify one of three 
things, namely, 

(1) That, in so far as the new principle of life is 

1 This view of his language agrees with that of Calvin, Turre- 
tin, Liicke, De Wette, and Neander. 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


409 

concerned, the regenerate man does not commit sin. In 
this case, that which is highest and best in the believer 
is spoken of as the person himself, even as Paul in the 
seventh of Romans says, “ But if what I desire not, that 
I do, it is no more I that perform it, but the sin that 
dwelleth in me.” Thus “ the new man ” and “ the old 
man ” both exist in the Christian : Rom. 6:6; Eph. 
4:22, 24; Col. 3:9 sq. 

(2) That one who has been begotten of God cannot 
sin deliberately, habitually, or persistently, since, by the 
grace of God, the new disposition is stronger than the 
old. 

(3) That one who has been made a child of God will 
not be suffered to apostatize and perish. 

The first of these interpretations is preferable to the 
second, and the second to the third; though the third 
may express a truth which is elsewhere taught. 

It does not appear, therefore, that John has written 
anything in this epistle inconsistent with the interpreta- 
tion given to his language in the first chapter. 

5. It may also be remarked, in this connection, that 
there seems to be no sufficient evidence of the existence 
of two, and only two, great classes of Christians, namely, 
a small one, embracing persons who exercise sanctifying 
faith and enjoy what has been called “ the higher Chris- 
tian life ” ; and a large one, embracing persons who have 
justifying faith, but know not the blessedness of perfect 
trust. It seems more in harmony with the representa- 
tions of Christian life in the Bible, and with the expe- 
rience of believers in every age, to say that the varie- 
ties of true life and progress are manifold, no two dis- 
ciples standing on exactly the same plane. 

But are Christians set free from the power of sin 
at death? Or do they enter the other world with the 
viper still in their bosom? Is the period between death 
and resurrection a kind of purgatory to many of the 


4io 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


saints ? Or is paradise the home and rest of all who have 
trusted in Christ ? The Bible knows nothing of a purga- 
tory for the saints after death. It teaches, rather, that 
the state of both the righteous and the wicked will be 
fixed from the hour when they leave this world: Luke 
16 : 22 sq. ; 23 : 43 ; Phil. 1 : 23 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 8. 1 

Sanctification will therefore be completed at death, 
but not before. The conflict with sin will be more or 
less arduous till the call to pass beyond the river comes. 

“ The way is long, my child ! But it shall be 
Not one step longer than is best for thee; 

And thou shalt know, at last, when thou shalt stand 
Safe at the goal, how I did take thy hand, 

And quick and straight 
Lead to heaven’s gate 
My child ! ” 

II. Abandonment of Christian Life and Service 

Is this in any case absolute and final, so that Christ 
in turn wholly abandons a regenerate soul? Or, is it 
probable that persons who- have been truly regenerated 
by the Holy Spirit will be preserved and carried for- 
ward in the new life unto the end? That they will be 
kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation? 

That some, at least, will “ fall from grace ” is con- 
fidently asserted by a large class of devout Christians; 
and the arguments which they bring forward in support 
of their belief are worthy of careful examination. The 
most important are these : — 

1. That analogy favors their doctrine; for not only 
Adam and Eve, but also holy angels, fell from a state 

1 Hovey (A.), “The Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life 
Compared with the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures ” ; Owen 
(J.), “On the Remainder of Indwelling Sin,” and “On the 
Mortification of Sin in Believers.” 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


411 


of moral purity. By parity of reason, it may be pre- 
sumed that men imperfectly sanctified will also, in some 
instances, fall. 

In reply to this argument, it may be said, that the re- 
lation of Christians to the Saviour is peculiar. In all 
probability, the grace of God is given to them in larger 
measure, and on a different principle, than it was given 
to our first parents, or to angels in heaven. It is not 
therefore legitimate to infer the lapse of believers in 
Christ from that of beings superior to them in good- 
ness, but standing in other relations to divine grace. 

2. That Christians are exhorted to persevere; and 
exhortation to perseverance implies a danger of the op- 
posite. See Rev. 2 : 10, 25, “ Be thou faithful unto death, 
and I will give thee the crown of life ” ; “ That which 
ye have, hold fast until I come ” ; “ Let us fear there- 
fore lest . . . any one of you should seem to have come 
short of it ” ; “ Let us therefore earnestly endeavor to 
enter into that rest ” ; Heb. 4: 1-3, 11. 

But, in answer to this, it may be affirmed that exhor- 
tations to perseverance hardly prove that those exhorted 
will not persevere. At most, they imply that without 
the exhortations, they might not persevere. Moral means 
must be used in accomplishing moral ends. 

3. That Christians are warned against apostatizing, 
and must therefore be in danger of this sin : Heb. 6 : 4-6, 
“ For it is impossible that they, who have been once 
enlightened . . . and have fallen away, should again be 
renewed to repentance” f . ; 10:26-32; 2 Peter 2:20- 
22 ; 3 : 7. 

The same reply may be made to this argument as to 
the preceding. Warnings against apostasy do not prove 
that any of those addressed will apostatize; they only 
prove that the use of means is necessary to prevent them 
from committing so dreadful a sin. The principle in- 
volved is aptly illustrated by the narrative of Luke in 


412 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Acts (cf. 27:22-25 with verse 31). Contingency and 
certainty are compatible in the government of God. 

4. That cases of apostasy are introduced hypothetically 
by the sacred writers ; and from these the same inference 
may be drawn, as from exhortations and warnings : 
Rom. 14: 15, “ Do not by thy food destroy him for whom 
Christ died ; (cf. 1 Cor. 8:11; John 15:1-6; Matt. 
25: 1-13; Luke 8:11 sq.). 

In this case, also, the same answer may be made as 
in the two preceding cases. The passages appealed to 
are virtually warnings against apostasy or leading others 
to apostatize. They recognize the moral freedom of 
Christians, and the natural possibility of their turning 
utterly away from Christ ; but they are written to prevent 
such a fall ; and none of them show that any who are 
truly united to Christ will finally be lost. 

5. That instances of final apostasy are related in the 
Bible, — as those of Saul, Judas, Hymemeus, Alexander, 
and others. 

In studying the history of Saul, we find no sure 
evidence that he was ever a child of God. See 1 Sam. 
10:9-13; 13:13, 14; 15^0 sq.; 16:13, 14. The gift 
of the Spirit which he had for a time was apparently 
official, but he seems never to have possessed a docile 
and obedient heart. 

Still less do we discover any evidence of true piety 
in the life of Judas, or in the language which either 
Christ or the evangelists use respecting him. See John 
6:64, 70; 12:6; 13:18, 19; 17:12; 18:9. It is not, 
indeed, easy to account for his being one of the twelve 
by the free choice of Christ, if he was evil from the 
first; but this hypothesis agrees better than any other 
with the narrative of John. 

Nor is there any decisive proof that Hymenseus and 
Alexander were, on the one hand, ever true Christians ; 
or, on the other, finally lost. Both of them were 


CHRISTIAN SERVICE 


413 


delivered to Satan in order that they might be taught, 
by chastisement, not to blaspheme : 1 Tim 1 : 20. This 
language suggests Paul’s hope of their recovery. 
Whether the Alexander mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:14, was 
the same as the one named in 1 Tim. 1 : 20, is quite 
uncertain, since the name was a common one among 
the Greeks ; and, if not the same person, there is no 
evidence of his being a Christian, even by profession. 

But the weight of scriptural evidence for the preserva- 
tion and sanctification of all true believers depends very 
much upon the view which is taken of God’s relation 
to the work. If it be true that some are chosen to 
eternal life, and that they are the same as those who are 
regenerated by the Spirit of God, it follows that they 
will be guarded by the power of God, through faith 
unto salvation : 1 Pet. 1:5; but the clause, “ through 
faith,” should never be overlooked. The Scriptures 
furnish no evidence for the opinion that men will be 
either sanctified or saved, without faith in Christ. If 
they are kept, they are kept by keeping alive their faith. 

It is doubtless conceivable that God has elected some 
of our race to a temporary faith, — to a state of grace 
from which they are to fall away and perish; but the 
Scriptures do not, on the whole, present this view of 
election. Thus, in 2 Thess. 2: 13, 14, the Apostle writes 
as follows : “But we are bound to give thanks to God 
always for you, brethren, beloved. of the Lord, because 
God from the beginning chose you to salvation, in 
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; 
whereunto he called you by our gospel to the obtaining 
of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And this is 
not the doctrine of Paul only ; Peter expresses the same 
belief (1 Pet. 1:3-5), “Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant 
mercy begot us again unto a living hope through the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; unto an 


4 i4 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


inheritance imperishable and undefiled and unfading, 
reserved in heaven for you, who, by the power of God, 
are guarded through faith, unto a salvation ready to be 
revealed in the last time . 1 

In both these passages the end is salvation; and the 
means a vital union with Christ, established and main- 
tained by the purpose and grace of God. In both, it is 
most natural to suppose that the writers considered all 
true believers as certain of being led by the grace of 
God, freely given and heartily received, to persevere unto 
the end. Says Turretin, “ Faith is not true because it 
perseveres ; but it perseveres because it is true.” It 
would be still better to say, that it perseveres because the 
Saviour, by his Spirit and his truth, keeps it alive in the 
heart which he has renewed; but there is no salvation 
for men who do not abide in Christ. The purpose of 
God comprehends the means as well as the end. 

1 Compare also John 10:28-30; 17:11, 12; Rom. 8:28-30, 
35-39; Phil. 1:6; Eph. 1:3-6, 11-14 with Matt. 7:22, 23; 25: 
41-46; 1 John 2 : 19. 


PART SIXTH 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


PART SIXTH 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 

Every thoughtful man feels at times a deep interest 
in what takes place at the end of this life, and is likely 
to ask such questions as these: What is the effect of 
death upon the soul? Does it bring the soul to naught, 
as it does the body? If not, in what condition does it 
leave the soul? Does it reverse the soul’s moral condi- 
tion, or leave it unchanged? Will the soul have any 
body after death, any physical organ or environment, 
connecting it with the visible universe? Will it be as- 
sociated with other personal beings? Will it see God 
any more clearly than it does in the present world? Will 
it move onward to revolutionary crises in its character 
or enjoyment? Or will it find rest in a state achieved, 
a perfection that merely abides as the ripe fruit of 
the past? If there be any answer to these questions, 
it must be found in a study of the life of the Risen 
Christ, and in the prophetic language of the Scriptures. 
To this study we now advance. 


416 


CHAPTER I 


ISSUES FOR BELIEVERS 

I. In Death. Relation of Death to Christian 
Life 

1. By the word “ death ” is now meant physical death, 
a separation of the body from the soul. That this does 
not involve a termination of conscious existence, is sug- 
gested by the words of the Old Testament Preacher, 
“ Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and 
the spirit shall return unto God who gave it ” : Eccl. 
12:7, an d is made certain by the language of Christ to 
his disciples, “ Be not afraid of those who kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul” : Matt. 10:28, as 
well as by his promise to the dying robber : “ To-day 
shalt thou be with me in paradise ” : Luke 23 : 43. 

2. However strongly the phenomena of death impress 
one with the thought of sinking into a state of total 
unconsciousness, and however sure one may be that his 
consciousness cannot be precisely the same out of the 
body as in the body, there is no solid ground for the 
opinion that death puts an end to thought and feeling. 
No person can safely believe that this was true of Jesus 
Christ, when he died on the cross, saying, “ Father, into 
thy hands I commit my spirit ” : Luke 23 : 46, or of 
Stephen when he called upon Christ, and said, “ Lord 
Jesus, receive my spirit”: Acts 7:59. 

3. Figurative references to death in the New Testa- 
ment show that it was believed to be a dissolution of 
the body, rather than a termination of conscious exist- 

417 


41 8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

ence. Thus the body is represented as a tent. “ The 
Word became flesh and lived in a tent among us ” : 
John 1:14; “As long as I am in this tent,” 2 Pet. 
1:13; “Knowing that I ipust soon put off my tent,” 
2 Pet. 1 : 14; “ If our earthly tent-house were dissolved, 
or taken to pieces ”: 2 Cor. 5:1. It is also for obvious 
reasons, in the case of Christ, spoken of as a temple 
that can be destroyed and rebuilt, “ Destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will raise it up ” : Jo. 2 : 19. Still 
further it is represented as a garment, “ For in this 
tent we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our 
habitation from heaven ” : 2 Cor. 5 : 2. Such language 
assumes that the body is distinguishable from the con- 
scious self which inhabits it, and that its dissolution does 
not put an end to the animating spirit. 

4. The science of physiology is indeed making it very 
clear that our present consciousness is dependent on the 
brain for its action, but it has nothing to say about 
consciousness out of the body. The language of Prof. 
John Fiske is not extravagant. 

“ Cerebral physiology says nothing about another l'.fe. In- 
deed, why should it? The last place in the wo M to which 
I should go for information about a state of things in which 
thought and feeling can exist without a cerebrum would be 
cerebral physiology. The materialistic assumption that there 
is no such state of things, and the life of the soul accordingly 
ends with the life of the body, is, perhaps, the most colossal 
instance of baseless assumption that is known to the history 
of philosophy. No evidence of it can be alleged beyond the 
familiar fact that during the present life we know Soul only 
in its association with Body, and therefore cannot discover 
disembodied soul without dying ourselves. This fact must 
always prevent us from obtaining direct evidence for the 
belief in the soul’s survival. But a negative presumption is 
not created by the absence of proof in cases where, in the 
nature of things, proof is inaccessible.” 1 

1 “The Destiny of Man,” p. no. 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


419 

5. But what relation has physical death to the moral 
condition of the soul? Many deny that it has any 
effect upon that condition. By a mere change of its re- 
lation to the senses and, through them, to the external 
world, they believe that the soul’s growth in grace can- 
not be hastened or retarded. The soul separated from 
the body will at first be in a moral respect just what 
it was before that separation. Doubtless this will be 
true as to its deepest life, its fundamental choice and 
purpose, its positive interest in God and love to his char- 
acter. But will “ the old man ” be as vigorous as be- 
fore ? Will “ the desire of the flesh and the desire of 
the eye and the vain boasting of life ” be the same as 
before? Will habits of bodily indulgence be as sore 
a temptation as they were prior to the great change? 
Are they not weakened by sickness till we scarcely know 
them at all? And shall we not be rid of them finally 
when death sunders our connection with the body? For 
Christian life, therefore, physical death is a blessing. 
Paul felt that it would be so for him, especially because 
it would bring him at once into closer relations with 
Christ: Phil. 1:21-24. 

6. “ Let the conditions of our moral and spiritual existence 
be altered in this one important respect; let the attractions 
which draw us to earth disappear altogether, and those which 
draw us to God be not only strengthened, but actually replace 
them, and then our growth in holiness and heavenly-minded- 
ness will be as sudden as if we were transformed in a mo- 
ment, in the twinkling of an eye. We need not suppose that, 
in the intermediate state, we shall climb up the way of holi- 
ness step by step, with many a stumble, and many a relapse, 
as the Christian pilgrim now does. One moment of the 
presence of Christ will do more to ripen our character than 
years of self-discipline here on earth.” 1 


1 Heard, “Tripartite Nature of Man,” pp. 271-2. 


420 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to Christian Life 

II. In Paradise. Relation of the Middle State 

It is sometimes said that “ where death leaves us the 
judgment will find us.” But this can be true in a gen- 
eral sense only, i. e., in so far as we are or are not be- 
lievers in Christ. For, assuming that the judgment 
referred to will take place at the end of the world, it is 
very improbable that there will be no spiritual progress 
on the part of God’s children between death and the 
final judgment. Notice the following allusions to the 
state of Christians after death : — 

1. They will be with the Lord. Of this Paul was so 
confident that he preferred, looking at himself only, 
“ to be absent from the body and to be at home with 
the Lord ” : 2 Cor. 5:8; or, in other words, “ to de- 
part, and to be with Christ, which is far better ” : Phil. 
1 : 21-24. This, too, was the best feature of the predic- 
tion of Jesus concerning the robber by his side, “ To- 
day thou shalt be with me in Paradise ” : Luke 23 : 43. 

2. They will be with Abraham , the father of the faith- 
ful, and with all the ancient worthies, sharing the bless- 
ings which they enjoy; Luke 16:23 f. (and cf. Matt. 
8 : 1 1 ) . This will be the ne plus ultra of human fel- 
lowship. Better society than this no Jew could imag- 
ine. Such society would be more favorable to growth 
in all things good and true than any other. It seems 
to be composed, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
of “ the spirits of righteous men made perfect ” : Heb. 
12:23, an d> ^ there be any encouragement or incentive 
to high attainment in the companionship of holy beings, 
the souls of believers after death will feel the power of 
it, and never cease to grow in grace. 

3. They will be in paradise or heaven. A comparison 
of Matt. 8: 11 with Luke 16:23 f. and 23:43 leads to 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


421 


the conclusion that Abraham was in paradise while he 
was in the kingdom of heaven. The word “ paradise ” 
may be regarded as bringing to mind the delightfulness 
of the Christian’s state after death, and the expression, 
“ kingdom of heaven,” as revealing his moral and re- 
ligious condition, his fellowship with the holy in serving 
God and enjoying him forever. 

But the teaching of Scripture as to the life of Chris- 
tians between death and resurrection is naturally meagre, 
and, for the most part, expressed in figurative speech. 
It fails, therefore, to answer many of the questions which 
curiosity asks, e. g., What knowledge have they of the 
earthly scenes and friends which they have left? Are 
these as invisible to them as they themselves are to us! 
What relations do they bear to material objects, to space, 
to spiritual beings? Are family affections cultivated 
and old friendships renewed? Do they render service 
to one another, — the older to the younger, the mature 
to children? Are they interested in all the works of 
God, and eager to drink at all the fountains of knowl- 
edge? Or is the field of their investigation limited to 
moral and religious life? to the character and conduct 
of their associates in paradise? 

(1) Not many of these questions can be answered 
from the Word of God. It may, however, be inferred 
from the reply of Jesus to the Sadducees, about the 
woman who had been married to seven brothers in suc- 
cession, that those who have passed through the gates 
of death neither marry nor are given in marriage, but 
in that respect are like the angels. Perhaps the conjugal, 
parental, and filial affections will cease to play an impor- 
tant part in spiritual life, love and companionship being 
determined more and more by character and service, by 
religious sympathies and needs. Yet it can hardly be 
questioned that if two souls have grown into spiritual 
harmony here, they will be likely to find each other there. 


422 


.MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


(2) Moreover, it would not be surprising if objects 
of sense should lose for the time their powerful hold 
on disembodied spirits, while the varied and wonder- 
ful capabilities and activities of souls should be of ab- 
sorbing interest. The spiritual treasuries of the universe 
are far more precious and inexhaustible than all its mines 
of gold and precious stones. To watch and study the 
unfolding of a living person in the most favorable cir- 
cumstances must be a matter of unspeakable wonder 
and admiration to a soul in paradise. 

(3) We can form no positive idea of the relation of 
finite spirits to space. Negatively, they are not omni- 
present. They can act somewhere and with a limited 
number of minds at the same instant, but only the In- 
finite Mind can act everywhere and with all other minds 
continually. Beyond this, it seems impossible to go in 
representing to ourselves the relations of pure intel- 
ligence to space. 

(4) The Bible offers no hint of sin on the part of 
Christians after death. All accounts of the judgment 
assert or imply that it will be based on deeds done here 
in the body. To that extent they seem to imply that 
probation, in the ordinary sense of the word, is not ex- 
tended beyond the present life. But this question will 
call for consideration in speaking of those who die in 
unbelief. 

III. In the Resurrection. Relation of the 
Resurrection to Christian Life 1 

Man was created an organic being, with body and soul 
in vital union and interaction. And it is safe to assume 
that his nature at the beginning was a forecast and type 

1 West (G.), “Observations on the History and Evidence of 
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ”; Macpherson (R.), “ The Res- 
urrection of Jesus Christ”; Milligan (W.), “The Resurrection 
of our Lord”; Morrison (C. R.), “The Proofs of Christ’s Res- 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


423 


of what it will be at the end; the germinal humanity 
was indicative of .what humanity would become when 
its ideal was reached. This promise wrought, as it were, 
into his nature at the first, was repeated with emphasis 
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his ascension into 
heaven. For he was raised and exalted as the God-man. 
This, beyond any reasonable doubt, is the teaching of 
the New Testament and was the belief of all the Apostles. 
The corner-stone of their faith in the resurrection of the 
dead was their knowledge of Christ’s resurrection. To 
this they bore unwavering testimony, though death stared 
them in the face. It will therefore be proper for us to 
examine their testimony to intercourse with the risen 
Christ, and afterwards their predictions of the resur- 
rection of all the pious dead. 

1. They testify that Jesus foretold his own resurrec- 
tion. The Apostle John says that he referred enigmat- 
ically to this event in his early ministry, “ Destroy this 
temple,” meaning the temple of his body, — “ and in 
three days I will raise it up”: John 2: 18-21. But his 
more explicit statements were made during the last few 
months of his ministry: Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31; 
Luke 9:22; Matt. 17:23; Mark 9:31; Matt. 20:19; 
Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33; cf - J°hn I0:I 4> 18 i 

12:24, 32. According to these records Jesus foretold 
his death and resurrection on the third day, on at least 
three occasions. The language used is perfectly clear, 
though it must have been taken to be highly figurative 
when it was heard by the disciples. Without doubt their 
belief in Christ, as appointed by God to be a great earthly 
King, led them to think his words figurative and above 

urrection from a Lawyer’s Standpoint”; Steinmeyer (F. L.), 
“ The History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, con- 
sidered in the light of Modern Criticism”; Stapfer (E.), “The 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ”; Hovey (A.), “The Miracles of 
Christ,” p. 271 ff. ; “ Biblical Eschatology,” ch. ii. 


424 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


their comprehension ; but they afterwards recalled 
them as clear prognostications of what had been ful- 
filled almost before their eyes. 

2. They testify that he appeared to them many times 
after his resurrection. Perhaps the earliest written tes- 
timony that has come down to us is that of Paul : i 
Thess. 4:14; 5:10; 1 Cor. 15:3-8; Rom. 1:4; 4:25; 
5 : 10, and often. In the remarkable statement of 1 Cor. 
15:3-8, this Apostle affirms that Jesus appeared, after 
his three days in the tomb, to Peter, to the twelve, to 
above five hundred at once, to James, again to all the 
Apostles, and at last to Paul himself. This is for the 
most part testimony at second hand. But it is the testi- 
mony of a keen-sighted and absolutely honest man, a 
man who had been convinced against his will of the 
supreme fact which he proclaimed, a man who had seen 
the Lord and heard his voice in circumstances which left 
no doubt in his mind of its being Jesus who appeared 
to him: 1 Cor. 9:1; Acts 22: 14, 15. Many years had 
passed since he became an Apostle of Christ, and dur- 
ing those years he had met some if not all of the earlier 
Apostles, and must have heard from them an account of 
the various manifestations which the Lord had made of 
himself to them during the Forty Days. 

He does not indeed mention all the instances which 
are spoken of by the Evangelists, for example, his ap- 
pearance to Mary Magdalene, to the women, to the two 
disciples on their way to Emmaus, or to the seven by the 
sea of Galilee, but neither does any one of the evangelists 
record them all. In such a case a part is better than 
the whole; for each of the narratives is manifestly no 
servile copy of another but the testimony of an inde- 
pendent writer. If the later Gospels had repeated the 
precise testimony of the earlier, adding to it, but omit- 
ting nothing, there would be far less value in their tes- 
timony than there is with all their diversities. 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


425 

The testimony of Peter as recorded by Luke in the 
Acts is likewise positive. In his discourse to the mixed 
multitude on the Day of Pentecost he lays great stress on 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 2:24 f. The same fact 
is emphasized in his address to the men of Israel who ran 
together in Solomon’s portico, after the lame man had 
been healed in the name of Jesus: 3:15 f. And when 
this Apostle, together with John, was afterwards brought 
before the Sanhedrin, he reiterated the same truth: 
4:10. When brought a second time before the same 
court, Peter and the Apostles said, “ The God of our 
fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him 
on a tree ” : 5 : 20, 30. The same fact was announced 
to Cornelius by the path-breaker in preaching the Word, 
and the Spirit of God ratified his message: 10:40. 

It is not, however, denied by good scholars that the 
Apostles and many other Christians were honestly con- 
vinced that they had seen with their natural eyes the 
risen Jesus. But may they not have been mistaken in 
respect to the objective reality of what they seemed to 
see? Was it not an illusion, wholly mental, the product 
of overwrought imagination ? 

In order to believe this we must reject the distinct 
record of Christ’s predictions concerning his resurrec- 
tion on the third day, the unqualified assertion of Mat- 
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, that those predictions were 
fulfilled, the public assertion of the same fact by Peter 
in Jerusalem, the deliberate affirmation of Paul to the 
same effect, with his powerful array of witnesses, and 
the confidence with which he himself and the other 
Apostles rested the truth of their entire message on the 
fact of Christ’s resurrection. That so many persons 
should have been deceived by waking visions, a dozen or 
even five hundred at a time, is incredible. That men 
like James and Thomas should have been made to believe 
that they saw the Lord when they did not is incredible. 


426 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

That the writers of the New Testament should have 
proclaimed with one voice the miracles of Christ and 
his resurrection from the dead, while both were imag- 
inary, and should, nevertheless, have depicted in him 
the ideal man, “ holy, harmless, undefiled,” is altogether 
incredible. 

3. They predict the resurrection of all believers in 
Christ. The writers of the New Testament do this : — 

(1) By recording the words of Christ to this effect: 
Luke 14:14, “ For thou shalt be recompensed at the 
resurrection of the just”; 20:34 f . ; John 6:54; 11:24 
f. (cf. John 5:28, 29). Such language is above criti- 
cism. Jesus Christ refers to the resurrection of the 
righteous as an event certain to take place in the future. 

(2) By testifying their own belief: 1 Cor. 6:14, 
“ God hath both raised the Lord, and will raise up us 
through his power ” ; 15 : 3-58 ; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3 : 1 1 ; 
1 Thess. 4: 14, 15; (cf. Acts 24: 15). Here again the 
language employed is extremely direct and unqualified. 
The belief of the Apostles in the resurrection of the dead 
is not subject to doubt. They may have been in error 
holding such a belief, but we cannot err in thinking they 
held it. 

4. They predict a resurrection of men with real , not 
ethereal, bodies : 1 Cor. 15:35, 36, 38, “ With what 
kind of body do they come”?ff. The difficulty of be- 
lieving in the resurrection appears to have centred, at 
that time, in the nature of the human body, perhaps in 
the assumption that the body, laid in the grave and min- 
gling with its kindred dust, could not be re-united with 
the soul, or, if it could, would be unworthy of perpetua- 
tion in another life. “ If Christians are to be raised up to 
a new life, they must have bodily organs as well as souls ; 
will you tell us with what sort of bodies they will come?” 

5. They represent the bodies of raised saints as cer- 
tain to be very different from those which they have in 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


427 


their earthly life: 1 Cor. 15:42-54; Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 
6: 13. Their present bodies are earthy, corruptible, 
weak ; their resurrection bodies will be celestial, incor- 
ruptible, glorious. The difference between them can- 
not easily be overstated, unless it be by denying that spir- 
itual bodies are really bodies at all. 

6. They teach that the raised bodies of believers in 
Christ will be adapted to spirit life , as their present 
bodies are adapted to animal life: 1 Cor. 15:44, “It is 
sown a natural (psychical) body, it is raised a spiritual 
(pneumatical) body.” A natural or psychical body is 
an organ for the psyche (^vxv) or animal life ; a spiritual 
or pneumatic body is an organ for the rational spirit or 
pneuma (Trvev/uLa). This appears to be the distinction laid 
down by the Apostle; and it is the most important one 
named by him. Indeed, it includes all the rest, and de- 
serves the closest study. This view is stated by Augus- 
tine in his treatise, (( De Civitate Dei,” XIII. 20, 22 : “ For 
as spirit that serves the flesh is called carnal, so flesh that 
serves the spirit is called spiritual ; not because it is con- 
verted into spirit, but because it is subject to spirit with 
a supreme and marvellous facility of obeying, having 
no sense of weariness, no liability to decay, and no tar- 
diness of motion.” 

7. They declare that the raised bodies of saints will 
be in some respects similar to their present bodies, be- 
ing probably material in substance, human in form, and 
individual in features and expression. Whether they 
will be connected with their predecessors by means of 
the identity of any of the particles of matter composing 
them, is uncertain and of no consequence. But if Jesus 
Christ had his resurrection body during the Forty Days, 
it is probably true that the selfsame atoms of matter 
which were in his crucified body were in his risen body, 
yet so changed in their relations to the whole organism 
and to the ruling spirit within as to be a spiritual body. 


428 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

(1) Three suppositions have been made as to the 
change by which Christ’s natural body became “ the body 
of his glory Phil. 3:21, first , that it took place before 
he left the tomb, so that he lived forty days in his 
heavenly body before he was taken up; second , that it 
took place gradually, during the forty days, beginning 
when he left the tomb and being complete when he dis- 
appeared in the clouds; and third, that it took place at 
the ascension, his body, during the forty days being the 
same, and in the same condition, as before the cruci- 
fixion. 

(2) We do not find anything in the Gospel narratives 
favorable to the second hypothesis, any indications that 
the disciples perceived that a change was going on in the 
body of their loved and risen Lord. Between the first 
and the third it is somewhat difficult to decide. In favor 
of the third is the circumstance that on one occasion he 
partook of food, — evidently to convince his disciples of 
the reality of his bodily presence. His body was there- 
fore capable of receiving and assimilating food. But, 
on the other hand, there is no hint of his suffering 
hunger, as he did during the forty days after his bap- 
tism, no hint of his living as of old with his disciples, 
but rather intimations of his appearing to them unex- 
pectedly, as if his home were no longer with them. His 
partaking of food may have been a condescension to their 
weakness rather than a revelation of his own. His whole 
bearing was that of one who belongs to a higher sphere of 
life. 

(3) We therefore incline to the first view, and believe 
with some degree of confidence that his disciples were 
furnished by his manifestations of himself to them with 
evidence of his resurrection to eternal life with a body 
adapted to that life, and not with evidence of the reani- 
mation of his corruptible body. Paul appears to have 
thought of it in this way, when he puts the appearance 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


429 

of Christ to himself on a line with his appearances to the 
older Apostles. And believing, as we do, that the Scrip- 
tures mean by a spiritual body a real body, material and 
tangible, yet perfectly adapted to the spirit, we do not see 
that the evidence of Christ’s bodily resurrection is weak- 
ened at all by this hypothesis. 

(4) Of course, the resurrection will put Christians 
again into sensible relations with the material universe. 
They will be denizens of two worlds, and better able than 
now to perceive the subtle relations which bind them to- 
gether, and the marvellous wisdom revealed in them 
both. The life of man will thus be perfected according 
to the divine ideal, and started on its endless career of 
progress in knowledge, in goodness, and in joy. 

But a question of less intrinsic importance, yet of great 
human interest, is still unanswered, viz., When are be- 
lievers in Christ to be raised from the dead ? We can 
expect an answer to this question from no other oracle 
than the Word of God, and as the answer must be predic- 
tive, the interpreter of it will have to encounter all the 
obscurities of predictive language. 

8. Believers in Christ will be raised from the dead at ' 
the last day , or the end of the present age. 

It is proper to exhibit with some care other current 
interpretations of Scripture on this point, as well as the 
one which seems to us correct. The most important of 
the other interpretations are two: (1) that the resur- 
rection of believers in Christ is coetaneous with their 
death, and (2), that their resurrection will immediately 
precede the millennium foretold by John in the book of 
Revelation. 

a. The resurrection of believers takes place at the time 
of their death. In putting off the natural body they put 
on the spiritual body. They are never, therefore, for a 
moment bodiless, spiritual beings. In support of this 
opinion reference is made to several parts of the New 


43 ° MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

Testament: Luke 20:34-38; John 11:25, 26; 1 Cor. 
15 : 36-38, 42-44. These, with certain other less decisive 
passages, are supposed to establish the opinion, especially 
as it obviates the difficulty of an abnormal and inconceiv- 
able life of disembodied souls, and has in its favor 
certain phenomena in the life of animals, for example, 
that of the butterfly and that of the frog. 

(a) In regard to the first passage (Luke 20:34-38), 
as a proof of the concomitance of death and resurrection, 
it may be remarked, that the matter in debate was not the 
time but the actuality of a resurrection of the dead, and 
further, that the use of the present tense in the clause, 
“ but that the dead are raised,” is accounted for by sup- 
posing it to express a general fact, without regard to 
time. 1 

The argument of Jesus is complete, if we assume that to 
him and to the Sadducees the reality of life after death 
is in itself a prophecy and pledge of resurrection to the 
righteous. 

(b) In regard to the second passage (John 11:25, 
26), it may be remarked, that Martha confesses her belief 
'in the resurrection of her brother at the last day, and that 
Jesus, to prepare her mind for the miracle which he was 
ready to perform, tells her that he himself is the principle 
and source of the resurrection at the last day, or, if he 
should please in the case of Lazarus, at the present time. 
There is no reason to suppose that he intended to suggest 
to Martha a doubt as to resurrection “ at the last day,” 
as she understood the expression, and a belief that he 
himself was now raising the dead, in the sense of giving 
them their spiritual bodies. Nor is there any ground for 
the opinion that Lazarus was raised to a life like that of 
angels, no longer subject to death. 

(c) In regard to the third passage, 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 
42-44, it may be said, in the first place, that the point 

1 See Hadley , 697 ; Goodwin, 205, i \ Burton, p. 8, 12. 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


431 


which Paul wished to illustrate was not the time of the 
resurrection, but the possibility or the probability of it. 
Therefore he says, “ The kernel of seed does not wholly 
die, but the life of it reappears in a new plant. Indeed, 
it cannot thus reappear with a new and larger integument 
unless the old one be cast off in death.” And, then, in 
the second place, to meet the skeptical question, “ With 
what kind of body do they come?” he calls attention to 
the great variety of bodies in the natural world, and 
affirms that, when one sows, he does not sow the body 
that shall be, but bare grain, and God gives it a body not 
identical with that which was sown, but adapted to its 
nature. 

Then, to show the vast improvement in the qualities of 
the resurrection body as compared with the present body, 
he retains his figure of sowing as analogous to death, 
and says, having specially in mind the body, “ The sow- 
ing is in corruption, the raising in incorruption ; the sow- 
ing is in dishonor, the raising in glory; the sowing is 
in weakness, the raising in power; the sowing is of a 
natural body, the raising of a spiritual body.” So dif- 
ferent will the resurrection body be from that which is 
laid in the grave! In all this there is no reference to 
the time of the resurrection, and it is obviously unsafe to 
apply an illustration beyond the limits of its application 
by the writer. 

There is a modification of this view which deserves 
notice. Dr. Israel P. Warren, in a work on “ The 
Parousia ” of Christ, holds that the abode of ante- 
Christian saints after death was in Hades, until the com- 
ing of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem ; then they 
were transferred to heaven, and this transference to 
heaven he supposes to be called a resurrection : 1 Thess. 
4: 1 6, 17; 1 Cor. 15 : 51, 52. Since that time, all believers 
in Christ not only receive at death their spiritual bodies, 
but. pass at once into the heavenly state. This seems to 


43 2 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


be playing fast and loose with the meaning of resurrec- 
tion in order to save a theory, — a theory, too, which, 
in so far as it concerns the resurrection of the dead, rests 
on insecure biblical foundations. 1 

The positive biblical grounds for rejecting the opinion 
that natural death and spiritual resurrection are simul- 
taneous, will be stated in supporting our proposition, 
that believers in Christ will be raised from the dead at the 
end of the present age. 

b. The resurrection of believers in Christ will take 
place just before the millennium foretold in the book of 
Revelation. The adherents of this view are numerous 
and active. Many of them are accomplished scholars ; 
many of them are earnest evangelists ; and it cannot be 
denied that they have been gaining influence for a long 
time. 

As interpreters, they are distinguished for their insist- 
ence on the literal meaning of the Scriptures, and for 
their belief in the possibility of understanding the details 
of prophecy. Yet their interest in the time of the resur- 
rection of believers depends on the supposed connection 
of that event with the return of Christ to reign visibly in 
Jerusalem. As evangelists they appeal to the nearness of 
that return as a motive to fidelity in preaching the gospel 
to all the nations, expecting the return of Christ when 
that is done. Their views deserve the most respectful 
consideration, but are not to be accepted as correct unless 
justified by the fairest principles of interpretation. 

(a) The cardinal passage is Rev. 2o:4~6. 2 On this 
passage we remark, that the book of Revelation is a series 
of visions, the imagery of which is symbolical and 

1 Bush (G.), “Anastasis; or, the Doctrine of the Resurrection 
of the Body”; “The Parousia” ; Thomas (R.), “Through Death 
to Life”; Warren (I. P.), “The Parousia; Critical Study of 
Scripture Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming.” 

2 Cf. “ Biblical Eschatology,” p. 66 ff. 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


433 


rarely explained in literal terms. The twentieth chapter 
is no exception to the general character of the book. The 
verses preceding, 4-6, are symbolical, and so perhaps are 
the following. Hence the paragraph in question may 
simply characterize in figurative language a long period 
in which faithful men will abound and have a controlling 
influence. Through them Christ will reign. Those who 
honor him will guide the forces of society. Persecution 
will cease. The appearance of these hosts of faithful 
men will seem like the reappearance of the holy martyrs 
and steadfast confessors of past ages, like the coming 
again of Elijah in the person of John the Baptist. And 
so this is called a resurrection ; and indeed the “ first 
resurrection m in contrast with the reappearance of all 
the fierce persecutors of the past in the gathering hosts 
of Gog and Magog, which are silently assumed to be the 
second resurrection of the prophetic tableau. This seems 
to be a possible interpretation of an obscure passage 
in a book containing many sayings hard to be understood. 
We prefer it to the premillennial exposition; especially 
because we shrink from resting an important doctrine 
on a single passage. 

(b) Other passages are, however, said to speak of the 
resurrection of believers as antedating that of unbelievers. 
Of these the most important are 1 Cor. 15:23, 24, and 
Phil. 3:11. But the confirmation afforded by these 
verses is very doubtful, for it is unnecessary to suppose 
that a resurrection from the dead (e/e ve/cpcov) means any- 
thing more than a resurrection by which those who share 
in it are forever separated from those who remain in the 
power of death eternal, while the resurrection of the 
dead ( avao-raat^ ve/cpwv ) embraces all the dead, including 
those who are subject to the second death. This ex- 
planation accounts for Paul’s language in Phil. 3:11, 
while in 1 Cor. 15 : 23, 24, and in 1 Thess. 4: 13-17, only 
believers are spoken of. John 5:29; Acts 24: 15, and 


434 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

Rev. 20 : 13, agree with the doctrine that all the dead will 
be raised in the same period of time. 

(c) Still other representations are believed to confirm 
the prima facie meaning of Rev. 20 : 4-6, viz., those 
which seem to say that Christ will return visibly to the 
earth, and reign as king in Jerusalem, with the children 
of Israel as his most honored ministers. In favor of this 
are alleged the words of Jesus in Matt. 19 : 28 : “ Verily 
I say to you, that ye who followed me, in the regeneration 
when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, 
ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel.” But this language, plainly figurative, 
probably refers to the last judgment. Compare Rev. 
4 : 4, where it is written that “ round about the throne 
were four and twenty thrones,” and 1 Cor. 6 : 2, where the 
Apostle teaches that “ the saints shall judge the world.” 
That Jesus had in mind the administration of affairs in 
his Messianic kingdom on earth is by no means evident. 

More natural is the supposition that he thought of such 
administration in the words reported by Luke 19 : 12 f. : 
“ A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive 
for himself a kingdom, and to return,” etc. But even 
here it is needless to assume that Jesus meant to predict 
his return from heaven to reign as a visible king on earth, 
and to reward his faithful servants with authority over 
many or few cities, according to what they had done. 

“ To receive a kingdom,” says Dr. Bliss, “ signifies the 
sending of the Son of man forth again in the glory of his 
Father and of the holy angels, when every knee shall bow 
before him, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord.” 

Note also the comment of Plumptre : 

“ ‘Authority over ten cities ’ must have something cor- 
responding to it, some energy and work of guidance, in the 
realities of the unseen world, and cannot simply be under- 
stood as fulfilled in the beatific vision or the life of ceaseless 
praise and adoration.” 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


435 


(d) Many other passages are interpreted as proofs of 
the resurrection of believers and the return of Christ to 
reign in visible glory during the thousand years, but none 
of them are conclusive. There does not seem to be a 
single unequivocal declaration that saints after the resur- 
rection will dwell on earth in their glorified bodies and 
take part in giving the gospel to mankind. An unbiased 
study of the New Testament will lead to the conclusion 
that their work here, as servants of Christ, is to be done 
by faith and not by sight. 

a. Jesus himself told his disciples that it would be 

better for them if he should go away, and another Ad- 
vocate, the Holy Spirit, take his place. He said also to 
Thomas, “ Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. 
Happy they who have not seen, and have believed !” John 
16:7 \ 20:29. When we think of the Pentecost and 

of the work of the Spirit in human hearts from that day 
to this, the wisdom of God in Christ’s withdrawal is 
plainly seen. The omnipresent Spirit can do more for 
the souls of men than the visible and localized Jesus. But 
if Jesus were visibly present on earth there is reason to 
suppose that even Christians would gather in throngs 
about him and be comparatively indifferent to the unseen 
Spirit. Their cry would be, “ Lo here !” and “ Lo there !” 
while their great need would be faith in the Unseen and 
the Eternal. 

b. This seems to have been the conviction of Peter 
also, if we may rely upon the second epistle ascribed to 
him, for in that epistle he writes these significant 
words : “ Beloved, let not this one thing escape you, that 
one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thou- 
sand years as one day. The Lord is not tardy in respect 
to the promise, as some account tardiness; but is long- 
suffering toward you, not wishing that any should perish, 
but that all should come to repentance ” : 2 Peter 3 : 8, 9. 

c. Returning to our proposition, “ Believers in Christ 


43 6 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

will be raised from the dead at the last day,” we 
call attention to the teaching of Paul in i Thess. 4 : 
13 f. : “ For this we say to you, in the word of the 
Lord, that we the living, who remain to the coming of 
the Lord, shall by no means precede those who are fallen 
asleep. Because the Lord himself will descend from 
heaven with a shout . . . and the dead in Christ will first 
rise. Then we, the living, who remain, will be caught 
up together with them in clouds into the air to meet the 
Lord; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Notice 
that the raised saints and those who are still alive are to 
be caught up together into the air to meet the Lord, and 
so, — probably, so caught up as to be in the air, — we 
shall be ever with the Lord. There is, at all events, no 
mention of a return to the earth to be with the Lord here. 

Again, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians he 
appears to speak of the same event with reference to the 
bad as well as the good, 1 : 6-10: “ Since it is a righteous 
thing with G6d to recompense affliction to those who 
afflict you; and to you who are afflicted, rest with us, 
at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the 
angels of his power, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on 
those who know not God, and on those who obey not the 
gospel of our Lord Jesus . . . when he shall come to be 
glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all who be- 
lieved ... in that day.” If these two passages do not refer 
to the same time, and that “ the last day,” it is not easy to 
see how that day could be referred to. 

Yet nothing is said of any change in the bodies of those 
who are at that time living on earth. They are to be 
caught up into the air to meet the Lord and to be with 
him, but whether in the body or out of the body Paul does 
not say. Yet he supplies this lack in a later epistle 
written to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15:51, 52: “ We shall 
not all sleep, but we shall all be changed [if we do not 
sleep] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 437 

trump : for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be 
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 

d. With these statements of Paul may be associated 
many others found in the New Testament: Matt. 13: 
39-43* 49> 5° ; 2 5 : I 4"3°> 3 l "4 6 ; John 5 129 ; 6 : 40, 44, 54 ; 
Acts 17:31 ; 1 Cor. 3: 13; 4:5; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Rom. 2: 
12-16; Rev. 20: 1 1 -1 5, from which it appears that the 
resurrection is the immediate antecedent of the last 
judgment, not of a thousand years of earthly ministry, 
followed by a short period of terror and conflict. 

e. We have already stated the reason why the resur- 
rection has so important an influence on the progress of 
Christian life. 

“ If modern materialism has done no other service to truth, 
we may at least credit it with this : it has revived our rever- 
ence for the human body, has shown how cunning is its 
workmanship, has pointed out how great a help it is to the 
highest delights and activities of the soul.” ] 

Perhaps the advancement of science may justify the 
conclusion which some have reached, that the soul is an 
organific power, making for itself unconsciously a body 
adapted to its condition and environment, a power not 
dependent upon a material organ for existence, but in- 
capable of its highest excellence without such an organ- 
ism. If this be the case, resurrection would be none the 
less a work of God, though effected by mysterious ener- 
gies inherent in the soul from creation. Physiology may 
yet render service to theology at this point. 

To this suggestion of zoology two objections may per- 
haps be made from a biblical point of view, first, that 
souls remain so long disembodied, and second, that the 
change from a natural to a spiritual body is described 
by the Apostle as instantaneous. 

(a) In reply to the first objection it may be said that 
souls cannot make for themselves a suitable organism 
1 A. H. Strong. 


43 8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

unless the proper materials are provided by their environ- 
ment. And God works by slow processes. A thousand 
years are with him a single day. But when the train 
is laid, when everything has been slowly prepared, mo- 
mentous changes are effected swiftly, one day is equal 
to a thousand years. 

( b ) In reply to the second objection something similar 
may be said. The coming of Christ may be timed in 
view of many conditions. And possibly it would not 
be too bold for one to assume that God may provide nat- 
ural means for effecting in a surprisingly brief period 
a change as wonderful as that of turning water into 
wine. What is suggested by the expulsion of our first 
parents from the Garden of Eden, lest they should “ take 
also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever ” ? The 
methods of God’s working are but imperfectly known, 
and it was no part of the Spirit’s office to reveal them 
by inspiration to the prophets or Apostles. 

A 

IV. In the Last Day. Relation of the Last Day 
to Christian Life 

There can be no reasonable doubt of the application 
of Paul’s great sentence, that “ all things work together 
for good to them that love God,” to the manifestation 
of the righteous judgment of God at the last day. So 
august a tribunal and so wonderful a review of the past, 
dark with human sin and radiant with divine love, must 
stir the spiritual nature of believers to its depths, and 
furnish the highest possible motives to gratitude and 
devotion. Says Professor Phelps : 

“ To me the day of judgment seems more valuable for its 
righting the self-accusations of good people, than for its con- 
demnation of the wicked. These awful tribunals of con- 
science need an illuminating from infinite love, and they are 
sure to get it.” 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


439 


The Scriptures clearly predict: — 

1. A last judgment or a judgment at the last day: 
Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:22, 27, 29; Acts 17:31, “He 
has fixed a day, in which he is going to judge the 
world in righteousness, by a man whom he has appointed, 
having given assurance to all by raising him from the 
dead”; Rom. 14:9, 10; Rev. 20:11-15. No comment 
would add anything to the distinctness, simplicity, or 
impressiveness of these representations. 

2. It will be a general judgment. All men of all ages 
of the world will give account of themselves to God : 
Matt. 12:36, 37; 25:32, “Before him will be gathered 
all the nations, and he will separate them one from an- 
other,” etc.; Acts 17:31; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; 
2 Thess. 1:6-10; Rev. 20:11-15; Eccl. 12:14. Taken 
together, these representations remove all ground for 
doubt as to the universality of the judgment. All men 
capable of moral action in this life will be made manifest 
before the judgment seat of Christ. Some theologians 
teach that believers in Christ will not be brought before 
the bar of God. Their sins have been forgiven ; they 
are not under law, but under grace; any review of their 
lives must, therefore, be worse than useless. Dr. Phelps 
did not think so; Paul did not think so; Christ did not 
think so : Luke 19 : 16 f. 

Others with more reason have thought that Christians 
will be first judged, and then take part with Christ in 
judging the wicked: Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Cor. 
6:2 c.f. ; also Matt. 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17-19; Rom. 
5:17; Rev. 22 : 5. It is not easy to determine the exact 
meaning of these statements; whether they refer to the 
judgment itself, or to something which may precede 
or follow that crisis; or whether some of them refer to 
one thing, and others to another. 

3. It will be a righteous judgment: Acts 17:31, “He 
is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man 


440 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


whom he has appointed ” ; Rom. 2:6)2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 
6 : 7-10 ; Eph. 6:8; Rev. 2 : 23 ; 20 : 12 ; 22 : 12 sq. This 
fact should be frequently and earnestly asserted, when 
the last judgment is referred to. It should be urged 
with all possible emphasis, as a first truth of Christian- 
ity, that no man will be wronged in the least by the final 
sentence, — that every one will be sent to his own place. 
The final day will bring a revelation of the righteous 
judgment of God, and will thus render it forever im- 
possible for the good to doubt his righteousness, or be 
troubled at the dark features of his providence. Such 
a judgment, vindicating the ways of God to men, and 
setting plainly before them the wonders of his holiness 
and grace, can only be effected at the end of the world. 

4. It will be administered by Jesus Christ. This is 
perhaps the most interesting fact concerning it. Some 
passages appear to emphasize his human nature as if it, 
in some way, made it suitable for him to fill the office 
of judge: John 5 : 27. Whether it is because honor should 
be put on his suffering humanity, or because his human 
sympathy would make him a merciful judge, is possibly 
doubtful, though the former reason is naturally sug- 
gested by the words in John’s Gospel. 

V. In the After Life 

1. How can one speak of this without belittling its 
greatness ? 

“ When what at present limits us shall be taken away, will 
time itself also, as the measure of existence, disappear? If 
we imagine those limitations removed, we find that we still 
possess a life of imperishable duration in time; a life which 

^‘Biblical Eschatology,” pp. 156-60; Bicker steth (E. H.), 
“ Hades and Heaven : What does Scripture reveal ? ” ; Hamilton 
(J.), “Beyond the Stars: or, Heaven, its Inhabitants, Occupa- 
tions, and Life ” Killen (J, M.), “Our Friends in Heaven,” etc.; 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


441 


grows not old, but continually abides in unweakened power 
and never-failing fulness; a consciousness which loses 
nothing it has once possessed, and which can call up from 
the mine of memory the most distant past with unfettered 
freedom. Such an existence, we perceive, must subjectively 
afford the purest satisfaction, for it is fixed yet variable, 
simple yet manifold, becoming yet remaining, active yet at 
rest, susceptible of the highest bliss and of clear reflection 
of God’s image. Time would then have become only the im- 
manent form wherein life was carried on in perfect freedom, 
but life would still be life in time .” 1 

2. Less profoundly it may be remarked that, by the 
acquisition of a body perfectly adapted to his spiritual 
nature, now in harmony with God, the physical crea- 
tion will be apprehended as never before. By self-adjust- 
ing organs of sight, more delicate and powerful than 
microscope and telescope combined, worlds adorned with 
infinite varieties of color, central suns and revolving 
planets of every hue and glory, may be brought into 
closest contact with his soul ; while, at the opposite ex- 
treme, radiant atoms and molecular palaces, modest flow- 
ers and glittering dewdrops, luminous clouds and sun- 
set skies, kindle admiration and delight. 

3. By organs of hearing perfectly adapted to his soul, 
now in harmony with God, other no less wonderful 
qualities of the physical universe may be sensibly per- 
ceived and felt. Regions which seem to us silent as 
night may prove to be full of sweet sounds and chords 
of heavenly music. All motion may report itself in 
sound. The circling spheres may be an orchestra, and 
their discourse rich in thought and melody. Instead of 
the few octaves which our dull ears can catch from 

Harbaugh (H.), “Heaven” — “The Heavenly Home” — “The 
Heavenly Recognition,” 3 vols., separate; Thompson (A. G), 
“Lyra Ccelestis : Hymns on Heaven”; Montague ( R.), “Heaven.” 

1 Urwick’s Translation of Muller’s “ Christian Doctrine of 
Sin,” II., p. 1 18 f. 


442 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the unmeasured diapason of nature, saints in their glori- 
fied bodies may be able to hear them all. There will be 
no notes too high or too low, no harmonies too sweet or 
too majestic, no scores too intricate or too varied. But 
of all sounds it may well be that then, as now, those of 
the human voice will be the dearest, and social inter- 
course one of the prime delights of heaven itself. 

4. But it is unnecessary to speak of all our bodily 
senses. They will be suited to the activities of the 
rational spirit in a life of endless progress. And the life 
of that spirit will not be self-centred. Its activities will 
not have enjoyment for their end. They will answer 
to the impulse of love and go but in service to others. 
As Richard Rothe has said, “ The great question in the 
life to come will not be what we know , but what we are ; 
and in connection with this, what we can do And he 
beautifully adds, “What a comforting thought it is for 
the man who suits no calling here on earth, that God will 
there have some little post ready, even for him, in which 
He will have work for him to do.” And the writer well 
remembers a remark of Eustace C. Fitz, that he “ could 
not bear to think of heaven, except as a place where 
there was enough to do. ,, 


CHAPTER II 


ISSUES FOR UNBELIEVERS 
I. Relation of Death to Unbelievers 

1. The Scriptures do not reveal any difference between 
the death of unbelievers and that of believers, so far as 
its effect upon conscious existence is concerned. In 
neither case does it put an end to the life of the soul, 
though it may, and probably does, make some change 
in the direction and force of that life. Consciousness 
out of the body must differ from consciousness in the 
body, perhaps by being simpler and less distracted, pos- 
sibly by losing the steadying influence of the slow and 
uniform processes of nature. 

2. As to the feelings with which death is met by un- 
believers, in comparison with those of believers, very 
little is said by the sacred writers, and nothing by Jesus 
Christ. One of the proverbs reads, “ The wicked is 
thrust down in his evil doing; but the righteous has 
hope in his death”: 14:32; and Paul declares that “the 
sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law,” 
and then adds, “ but thanks be to God, who gives us the 
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”: 1 Cor. 15:56, 
57. But in a majority of instances the weakening effect 
of disease prevents serious thought, so that men die 
without alarm, even when they have no cheering hope of 
a better life. Of course there are exceptions to this 
rule. Some are conscience-stricken and meet the end 
with terror and remorse. Of others, however, it may 
be said, “ There are no bands in their death, but their 
strength is firm” (Ps. 73:4). 

443 


444 


MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


II. Relation of Hades to Unbelievers 

From the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 
Luke 1 6:23-26, and from the words of Peter in his 
epistles: 1 Pet. 3:19; 2 Pet. 2:9, it is necessary to 
conclude that unbelievers are miserable after death. 
Their disembodied life is not one of enlargement, but one 
of restraint, and it is immaterial how that restraint is 
imposed, whether by the laws of their own moral nature 
or by the action of external forces, whether their jailer 
be conscience, or some other minister of God (cf. Rom. 
13:4). And the same may be affirmed in respect to 
their suffering — the loss and pain which are the penal 
consequences of sin. 

But is there no remedial tendency in their suffering? 
Are they not still “ prisoners of hope,” and likely, in 
many cases, if not in all, to repent and to be forgiven? 
Every lover of God and man would be glad to believe 
this probable and, indeed, certain. But is there evidence 
in the Word of God that such restoration will be ac- 
complished ? A number of scholars believe that they find 
it in a few sentences of Holy Scripture, and especially 
in 1 Pet. 3: 19 and 4:6. But there are grave reasons 
for distrusting their interpretation of these passages. 1 

1. The aim of this entire epistle is to encourage be- 
lievers in Christ to be steadfast in times of bitter per- 
secution, even though such persecution may issue in 
death for Christ’s sake and the gospel’s. 

2. The paragraph in which these verses occur seeks 
to accomplish this purpose with an earnestness and force 

1 Johnstone (R.), “The First Epistle of Peter. Revised Text 
with Introduction and Commentary ” ; Leighton (R.), “A Prac- 
tical Commentary on the First Epistle of Peter”; Lillie (J.), 
“ Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter ” ; Farrar 
(F. W.), “Wider Hope,” etc.; Plumptre (E. H.), “The Spirits 
in Prison,” etc.; Williams (N. M.), “ Commentary on the 
Epistles of Peter ” in “An American Commentary on the New 
Testament.” 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


445 


of appeal which make it the very heart of the epistle. 
That Peter should have turned aside to speak of a wholly 
different and unusual subject in this paragraph, is there- 
fore extremely improbable. 

3. Previously, in the same epistle, Peter speaks of the 
Spirit of Christ which was in the ancient prophets, and 
which testified beforehand of the sufferings awaiting 
Christ and the glories that would follow them : 1 Pet. 
1 : 11. And in his second epistle he writes of Noah as 
a “ preacher of righteousness,” who was preserved, with 
seven others, when “ the world of ungodly men ” was 
destroyed by the flood : 2 Pet. 2:5. 

4. It cannot be esteemed very improbable that Peter 
should think and speak of the ungodly contemporaries 
of Noah as “ the spirits in prison,” i. e., now in prison, 
or that he should speak of Christians who had suffered 
martyrdom, as “ dead men ” to whom the gospel was 
formerly preached, in order that they might, according 
to human decisions, be condemned in flesh, but, on the 
other hand, according to God’s decision, live in spirit. 
In other words, their physical death by the judgment 
of men was embraced in the high purpose of God who 
made them partakers of his own life through Christ 
in their spiritual nature. 

For these reasons, we distrust the interpretation which 
finds in the Apostle’s words an assertion that Christ 
preached the gospel in Hades after his crucifixion, and 
adopt the interpretation which supposes that Peter refers, 
in the first verse, to Christ’s preaching through the in- 
spired voice and work of Noah, and, in the second, to 
the preaching of those who had carried the gospel to 
Asia Minor where some who had received it had already, 
when this epistle was written, suffered martyrdom for 
Christ’s sake. 

5. Others, e. g., Julius Muller, have discovered in what 
Jesus says concerning the sin against the Holy Spirit 


44-6 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

evidence that repentance and forgiveness will have place 
in the intermediate state. For, according to Matt. 12 : 32, 
Jesus said, “ Whoever speaks a word against the Son 
of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks 
against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, 
neither in this age, nor in that which is to come.” The 
last clause, “ nor in that which is to come,” is thought 
to be added as a distinct intimation that other sins are 
forgiven in the age to come, if not in this age, of course 
upon the universal condition of repentance. We have 
no confidence in this interpretation. For Jesus may 
have spoken from the Jewish standpoint, meaning, that 
neither in the Jewish period, nor in the Messianic period, 
will defamation of the Holy Spirit be open to forgive- 
ness. Or he may have used the double expression 
merely for the sake of emphasis: such a sin will never 
be forgiven, never, to all eternity! And it is worthy 
of consideration that Mark says, “ will never have for- 
giveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,” while Luke 
says, “ but to him who blasphemes against the Holy 
Spirit, it will not be forgiven.” 

6. It may, however, be urged that, in the nature of 
the case, any man who repents and believes in Christ 
will be forgiven. It matters not how long he has sinned 
or at what stage of his development as a moral being 
he may be, repentance will bring him into harmony with 
God and therefore into favor with God. If the lost son 
comes to himself and returns to his Father he will meet 
a father’s welcome. This is doubtless true. But the 
question remains, Will he repent? Is there any reason 
to believe that one who enters Hades will truly seek 
the Lord? Or is there, rather, reason to believe that 
he has gone to “ his own place ” ? That he is morally 
what and where he wishes to be? In the Scriptures, 
alas, we find no indications of repentance in the state 
after death. 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


447 


7. Nor is it easy to discover in the biblical accounts 
of souls in Hades any rational ground for hoping that 
they will accept a religious life there which they refused 
here. There are many natural ties and sweet associations 
here, that serve to soften the heart and even the con- 
science, which can hardly be found there.. Evil spirits 
are presumably worse than evil men. There may be 
some increase of knowledge there, but not of love or of 
tenderness. Associates will not be helpful to reverence 
or conscientiousness or humility. In a word, this life 
is in every respect more favorable to a radical change of 
character than we can presume the next stage of human 
life to be. 

III. Relation of the Resurrection to Unbelievers 

1. There are but two, possibly three, passages in the 
Bible which foretell the resurrection of unbelievers. But 
one of these is so simple and unambiguous as to count 
for a great deal by way of evidence. It is the language 
of Jesus preserved by the Apostle John : 5 : 29, which 
affirms that “ all who are in the tombs will hear his voice, 
and will come forth ; they that did good, to the resur- 
rection of life, and they that practised evil, to the resur- 
rection of judgment,” or condemnation. 

The second passage is Luke’s report of a part of Paul’s 
words to Felix the governor: Acts 24:15, which de- 
scribe Paul as “ having a hope toward God, which these 
themselves also look for, that there will be a resurrec- 
tion both of righteous and unrighteous men.” Some, 
indeed, have endeavored to break the force of this 
language by suggesting that Luke may not have reported 
Paul’s speech accurately; but there is no more reason for 
this suggestion in the present case than in twenty others. 

The third passage is Rev. 20:13, 14, “And the sea 
gave, up the dead who were in it ; and death and Hades 


44 8 MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

gave up the dead who were in them; and they were 
judged every one according to th.eir works. And death 
and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.” The word 
“ resurrection ” does not occur in the whole paragraph 
of which these verses are a part ; but no intelligent reader 
is likely to deny that when the seer “ saw the dead, the 
small and the great, standing before the throne,” he 
saw them as men, not as disembodied souls, and that 
the following verses describe his vision of the resur- 
rection. 

2. It is, however, remarkable that there is nowhere 
in the New Testament any reference to the kind of 
bodies possessed by the ungodly after their resurrection. 
Perhaps the most natural conjecture is that they will 
resemble those of the godly in being spiritual, and there- 
fore incorruptible. As they sinned in the body they will 
suffer the consequences of sin in the body. In the body 
they will come to judgment, and take their natural place 
on the left hand of him whose grace they have refused. 

IV. Relation of the Last Day to Unbelievers 

All accounts of the Last Day ‘ represent two classes 
as brought before the Judge. Not all are good ; not all 
are bad; but there are many of each class; far more, 
without doubt, of the righteous than of the wicked, but 
nevertheless many of the wicked. 

i. And according to the teaching of Christ some of 
those on his left hand will come from the ranks of his 
nominal disciples; perhaps being men of mark and ex- 
ploits. “ Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, 
did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast 
out demons, and by thy name do many miracles? And 
then will I profess to them, I never knew you; depart 
from me, ye who work iniquity” : Matt. 7 : 22-24. Men 
confident of their claim to the favor of Christ will be 


ISSUES HEREAFTER 


449 


informed at last that they were never, for an hour, rec- 
ognized by him as disciples, because they were wrong- 
doers. “ Nothing but truth before his throne with honor 
can appear.” 

A less boastful but equally unspiritual character is 
ascribed by Jesus to those on the left hand, according 
to Matt. 25 : 44 f., “ Then will they also answer, saying, 
Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, 
or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister 
to thee? Then will he answer them, saying, Verily, I 
say to you, in as far as ye did it not to one of the least 
of these, ye did it not to me.” If one has not love, he 
has not the wedding garment, and, when reminded of 
this, may well be speechless. 

If the Last Day does nothing more than show every 
moral being what he has been and is, in the sight of a 
perfect Judge, it will revive his conscience and make him 
his own judge. 

2. By the decisions of the Last Day some of the wicked 
will suffer less than others: Luke 12:47, 4 &> Matt. 
11:21-24; Heb. 10: 29; Rom. 2:12. But it is not im- 
possible that persons who have hated God less than 
others in this life may hereafter overtake in wickedness 
their more guilty companions. If so, their misery will 
become equal to that of their companions; for no one’s 
accountability ends at the last day. Moral beings will 
be forever under obligation to do the will of God ; and if 
they refuse to do this, they must forever experience the 
reproach of conscience for their refusal. Again, im- 
penitence for sin is sin, and must be condemned by 
conscience as long as this impenitence continues. The 
same is likewise true of want of love to God, which in- 
evitably passes over into hatred; while hatred of God is 
hatred of holiness, and must be forever recognized by 
the moral nature of man as wrong and without excuse. 
If impenitence continue, punishment will continue; for 


45 ° MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

it is involved in the constitution of the soul ; so of hatred 
to God, and punishment for the same. 

3. But just what will be the result of sin and of woe 
in the final state, no one of the sacred writers has 
informed us. Whether the wicked will always seek for 
more knowledge, or rather, as far as possible, shun the 
light, can only be conjectured. Preferring to remain the 
enemies of God, they may, nevertheless, despair of im- 
proving their condition, and so make no effort to enter 
new fields of thought. A sense of shame and of guilt 
may brood over them, and turn their attention to the 
past rather than to the future. Opportunities to do 
evil, except in thought, may be cut off, and their minds 
be chiefly occupied with what they “ might have been,” 
— with what they have lost, and with the conviction 
that they have no excuse for their sin and folly. 

“ So I sit alone with my conscience 

In the place where the years increase; 

And I try to remember the future 
In the land where time will cease. 

“ And I know of the future judgment, 

How dreadful soe’er it be, 

That to sit alone with my conscience 
Will be judgment enough for me.” 

— Charles W. Stubbs . 


f 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


The heavy-faced figures indicate interpretations of the text referred to. 


PAGE 

Genesis 


i. i passim . . 

95 , 

113, 

121 

i. 26, 27 . . . 

145 

i. 27 . . . . 

136 

ii. passim 

95 

ii. 2, 3 . . . 

401 

ii. 7 , IS f. • • 

136 

ii. 17 . . . . 

163 

iii. 3 • • • • 

160 

iv. 13, 14 . . 

137 

iv. 17 . . . . 

137 

v. 3 .... 

137 

vi. 1-8 . . . 

188 

vi. 2 . . . . 

137 

vi. 2, 4 . . . 

188 

vi. 3 . . . . 

161 

vi. 6 . . . . 

104 

vi. 7, 8 . . . 

136 

vii. 21 . . . 

136 

viii. if.. . . 

136 

xiv. 20 219 . 

219 

xvi. 7, 10, 13 . 

187, 


206 

xvii. 1 . . . 

206 

xvii. 10-14 • 375, 

376 

xvii. 10 f. . . 

376 

xviii. 1-9 . . 

189 

xviii. 1, 2, 3, 13, 


17 ... . 

206 

xviii. 13 f. . . 

187 

xviii. 14 . . . 

1 10 

xviii. 20, 21 

126 

xxi. 33 . . . 

114 

xxviii. 11, 22 . 

206 




PAGE 


PAGE 

xxviii. 12 


192 

xxxii. 7 f. . . 

337 

xxix. 21 f. . 


103 

xxxii. 34 . . . 

206 

xxx. 1 f. 


103 

xxxiii. 3, 14 . . 

206 

xxxi. 11-13 . 


206 

xxxiv. 14 . . . 

105 

xxxi. 40 . . 


l8l 

xxxv. 31, 35 . . 

300 

xxxii. 1, 2 . 


18 7 



xxxii. 25-31 
xli. 26 . . 


206 

387 

Leviticus 


xlviii. 15, 1 6 


206 

i- 4 

259 

1. 20 . . . 


126 

iv. 4, 20, 26, 31, 





35 .... 

259 

Exodus 


v. 1, 17 • • • 

257 




v. 6, 10, 13, 1 6, 


iii. passim . 


206 

18 .... 

259 

iii. 11-iv. 17 . 


74 

vi. 7, 15 • • • 

259 

iii. 14 . . . 


113 

viii. 14, 15 . . 

259 

iii. 18 f. . . 


107 

xi. 45 . . . . 

145 

iii. 19-21 . . 


126 

xvi. 16, 18, 20, 


iv. 17 . . . 


74 

30 , 33 • • • 

259 

iv. 22 . . . 


188 

xvii. 11 . . . 

259 

viii. 12, 13, 

16, 


xvii. 16 . . . 

257 

19 . . . 


127 

xix. 2 . 107, 

108 

xii. 11 . . . 


387 

xix. 22 

259 

xii. 46 . . 


385 

xx. 7 . . . . 

107 

xx. 4 . 


113 

xx. 19 . . . . 

257 

XX. 5 . . . 


105 

xxiv. 15. . . 

257 

xx. 5, 6 . . 

146 

1.73 

xxvi. 39-46 . . 

103 

xx. 8 f. . . 


401 



xxi. 24, 25 . 


103 

Numbers 


xxiii. 7 


319 



xxiii. 20, 21 . 


207 

v. 3 1 . . . . 

258 

xxiii. 20, 23 . 


206 

viii. 5-22 . . . 

370 

xxix. 36 . . 


259 

ix. 12 . . . . 

385 

xxx. 10 . 


259 

ix. 13 . . . . 

258 

xxxi. 3, 6 . 


300 

xiv. 33, 34 . . 

258 

xxxii. 4 . . 


108 

xvi. 22 . . . 

140 


45 2 


TEXTUAL INDEX 




PAGE 




PAGE 


PAGE 

xix. 11-22 

• 

370 

x. 9-13 . 


• 

412 

i Chronicles 

xxi. 28 

• 

l8l 

xi. 3 . . 


• 

187 



xxii. 23-27 

32 , 


xi. 6 


. 

300 

xi. 1 1 . 

102 

33 • • 

• 

187 

xiii. 13, 14 


• 

412 

xii. 18 

300 

xxiii. 19 . 

• 

104 

xv. 2, 3 . 


• 

103 

xviii. 4 . . . 

102 

xxvii. 16 . 

• 

140 

XV. 10 f. . 


• 

412 

xix. 18 

102 

xxx. 16 . 

• 

258 

xv. 11, 29 


• 

104 

xx. 3 . . . . 

103 




xvi. 2 . 


• 

103 

xxi. 1, 2 times . 

I98 

Deuteronomy 

xvi. 7 . 


• 

288 

xxi. 5 . . . . 

102 




xvi. 13, 14 


• 

412 

xxi. 14-16, 27 . 

187 

iv. 20 . . 

# # 

l8l 

xvi. 14 


193 , 

300 

xxi. 25 

102 

iv. 37 . . 

, , 

206 

xvi. 14, 16, 

23 • 

187 



vi. 5 • • 


l6l 

xviii. 10 . 


187, 

193 

2 Chronicles 

vii. 7, 8 . 

, , 

Il8 

xix. 9 . 


. 

187 

vi. 18 . . . . 


vii. 9, 10 . 

, , 

X46 

xxiii. 10-13 


• 

107 

115 

x. 12 . . 

• 145 

l6l 

xxvi. 16 . 


. 

107 

viii. 18 . . . 

102 

x. 17 . . 


288 





xix. 7 ... . 

288 

xiv. 1 .. 

• • 

188 

2 Samuel 


xx. 14 . . . . 

300 

xviii. 18-20, 

note 

74 





xxii. 2 ... . 

102 

xix. 21 

, , 

103 

viii. 4 



102 

xxiv. 20 . . . 

300 

xxiv. 1-4 . 

. IOI, 

103 

x. 18 . . 



102 

xxxvi. 9 . . . 

102 

xxv. 1, 2 times 

319 

xii. 31 . . 



103 



xxx. 6 . 

• 

161 

•xiv. 17, 20 



190 

Ezra 


xxx. 10 f. 

• • 

102 

xv. 4 . . 



319 



xxxii. 4 . 

• • 

108 

xvii. 1 1 . 



206 

ii. 69 . . . . 

102 

xxxii. 5 . 

• . 

188 

xxii. 47 . 



219 



xxxii. 8-14 

• 

125 

xxiii. 2 . 



300 

Nehemiah 


xxxii. 35 . 

• 

105 

xxiii. 8 . 



102 



xxxii. 40 . 

• 

114 

xxiv. 1 . 



127 

vii. 72 ... . 

102 

xxxiii. 2 . 

187, 

190, 

xxiv. 9 . 



102 

ix. 6 . . . . 

123 


191, 

i 95 

xxiv. 16 . 



104 






xxiv. 24 . 



102 

Job 


Joshua 






Passim 

109 

198 

iii. 15, 16 


126 

1 Kings 


i. 6 £. . . . 188, 

x. 1 1 . 

• • 

1 27 

iii. 7-12 . 


. 

300 

i. 6-9 .... 

ii. if. .. 188, 

193 

193 




iv. 29 . . 


• 

300 

vi. 9 . . . . 

I§2 

Judges 


viii. 27 . 
viii. 32 


. 

115 

319 

vii. 21 . . . 

viii. 22 . . . 

182 

182 

n. i-S • • 


207 

viii. 39 . 


• 

107 

x. 12 . . . . 

122 

iii. 10 . . 


300 

viii. 46 


163, 408 

xx. 8 . . . . 

182 

iv. 18-21 . 


103 

viii. 51 . 


• 

l8l 

xxx. 30 . . . 

l8l 

v. 24-27 . 


103 

ix. 28 . . 


• 

102 

xxxiv. 19 . 

288 

vi. 34 • • 


300 

xix. 5 . . 


• 

195 

xxxviii. 7. 1 22, 

188, 

ix. 8-16 . 


9 i 

xxii. 21 f. 


187, 

193 


190 








xii. passim . . 

I 10 

1 Samuel 


2 Kings 










365 

Psalms 


ii. 2 . . 

• • 

107 

iii. 11. . 

• 

. 



iii. 14 . . 

• 

259 

viii. 11 

. 

. 

103 

i. passim . . . 

8l 

vi. 19 . . 

• 

98 

viii. 26 

• 

• 

102 

ii. . . 208, 209, 

293 

viii. 15 . 

• • 

92 

xxiv. 8 

• 

• 

102 

v. 10 . . . . 

152 



PAGE 

vi. 6 . . 

, . 

181 

xi. 7 . 

, . 

108 

XV. I . . 

• 

108 

xviii. 46 . 

• 

219 

xix. passim 

• 

19 

xxi. 10 . 

. 

181 

xxv. 8 

• 

118 

XXX. 10 . 

• 

181 

xxxi. 10, 11 

• 

181 

xxxi. 17 . 

. 

118 

xxxiii. 5 . 

• 

108 

xxxiv. 17 . 

• 

182 

xxxvii. 9, 22, 28 

182 

xxxvii. 10, 

36 • 

182 

xxxvii. 20 

• 

181 

xxxix. 5 . 

• 

182 

xxxix. 1 1 

. 

181 

xl. 14 . . 

• 

258 

xliv. 26 . 

. . 

118 

xlv. . 208, 210 

293 

xlv. 7 . 

. 

108 

li. 1 . . 

• 

320 

li. 8-14 . 

. 

301 

lvii. 1 1 

. 

109 

lxvi. 20 . 

, . 

219 

lxviii. 18 

. 187 

195 

lxviii. 20 . 

. . 

219 

lxix. 10 . 

. 

181 

lxxii. . 208, 210 

,293 

lxxii. 19 . 

• 

219 

lxxiii. 4 . 

. 

443 

lxxiii. 15 . 

# , 

188 

lxxvi. 1 1 . 

. , 

126 

lxxxii. 7 . 

' • * 

188 

lxxxviii. 11 

-13 • 

181 

lxxxviii. 1 7 

. . 

182 

lxxxix. 14, 

IS . 

146 

xc. 2 . . 

. 

114 

xci. 11, 12 

. 

198 

xci. 12 

. 

195 

xcvii. 2 . 

. 

108 

xcvii. 3 . 

. 

181 

cii. 4 . . 

. 

181 

cii. 28 . . 

. 

113 

ciii. 9 . . 

. 

118 

ciii. 11-13 

. 

109 

ciii. 20 

. 126 

189 

civ. 4 . . 

. 

187 

civ. 29, 30 

. 

123 

cx. . 208, 210, 21 1 

293 

cxv. . . 

. 

383 

cxv. 1 7 . 

. 

181 

cxviii. . . 

. 

383 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


cxix. passim 

PAGE 

. 8l 

cxix. 12 . 


219 

cxxxvi. 1-26 


109 

cxxxvi. 4 . . 


I 10 

cxxxvi. 4-9 . 


Il8 

cxxxix. 2, 1 1, 

12 

107 

cxxxix. 6 


114 

cxxxix. 6-12 


115 

cxxxix. 7 


113 

cxxxix. 16 . 


107 

cxlv. 7 . 


325 

cxlv. 9 . 


109 

cxlv. 10 . 


126 

cxlv. 17 . 


108 

cxlviii. 3-9 . 


126 

Proverbs 

i. 24 f. . . . 

164 

xiv. 32 


443 

xvi. 4 . . . 


118 

xvi. 4, 9 . . 


1 16 

xvii. 15 . 


319 

xvii. 22 . . 


136 

xx. 9 . 


408 

xxvi. 4, 5 . 


100 

xxix. 1 . 


164 

Ecclesiastes 

v. 6 .... 

187 

vii. 20 . . . 

163, 408 

ix. 10 . . . 

. 

181 

xii. 7 . . . 

140, 

417 

xii. 14 . . 

. 

439 


Isaiah 


to 

00 

. 

• 

181 

V. 23, 2 

times 


3 i 9 

vi. 3 . 

107, 108, 

190, 

192 

vi. s-8 . 

. 


74 

vi. 8 f. 

. 


294 

vii. 14 

. 


93 

viii. 11, 

note 


74 

ix. 5, 6 

. 


211 

ix. 6, 7 

. 


293 

x. 5-12 

. 


274 

xiv. 24 

. 


1 16 

xxxviii. 

18, 19 


181 

xl. 17 . 

• 


182 

xl. 25 . 

• 


113 


xl. 26 . 


453 

PAGE 

I 10 

xl. 26, 29 . . 


123 

xl. 28 . 


113 

xii. 4 . . . 


114 

xii. 11, 12 . 


l82 

xlii. 8 . . . 


206 

xlii. 9 . . . 


107 

xlii. 19 . . 


187 

xliii. 2 


115 

xliii. 6, 7 . . 


Il8 

xliii. 9 


319 

xliv. 3 . . 


367 

xlvi. 10, 11 . 


I l6 

xlviii. 11 . . 


Il8 

xlix. 14-16 . 


109 

liii. 5, 6 . . 


274 

liii. 8 . . . 


l82 

liii. 12 . . 


257 

lvii. 16 . . 


140 

lix. 17 . . 


105 

lx. 21 . 


Il8 

lxi. 1, 2 . . 


300 

lxi. 3 . . . 


Tl8 

lxiii. 4 


105 

lxiii. 8, 9 . 


206 

lxvi. 1 . . 


115 

Jeremiah 

i. 5 

107 

i. 5-10 . . 


74 

x. 1 . . 


294 

x. 24 . . 


182 

xi. 4 . . 


181 

xiii. 23 

152, 164 

xiv. 12 


181 

xv. 17, note 


74 

xvi. 17 


107 

xviii. 7-10 

73, 102 

xxiii. 23 . 


ii 5 

xxvi. 2 £. 


102 

xxvii. 5 . 


1 10 

xxxi. 18 . 


152 

xxxi. 33 . 


294 

xxxii. 17 . 


1 10 

xxxvi. 2, 3 


102 

li. 57 • • 


181 


Lamentations 

iii. 33 . . . . n8 

iv. ii . . . . 181 


454 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


PAGE 


Ezekiel 


PAGE 


Jonah 


i. i-ii. 10 . . 

74 

iii. 10 . 

• 

• • 73 

ii. 10 . . . . 

74 

iv. 2 . 

• 

. 73, 102 

iii. 12 ... . 

219 




iii. 14, note . . 

74 

Micah 

iv. 5 . . . . 

257 




viii. 1, note . 

74 

iii. 8 . 

• 

• • 300 

xi. 5 . . . . 

300 

v. 2-5 . 

• 

. . 211 

xiv. 10 . . . 

257 




xvi. 47-52 . . 

164 

Zechariah 

xviii. 19, 20 . 

257 




xviii. 23 . . . 

109 

i. 14 . 

• 

. . 105 

xviii. 27, 31, 32 

153 

iii. 1, 2 

• 

• * 193 

xviii. 32 . . . 

118 

iv. passim 

. . 296 

xxii. 19-22 . 

181 

viii. 19 

• 

• • 395 

xxiii.. 35 . . . 

258 

xii. 1 . 

• 

. . 140 

xxxiii. 11 .109, 

1 18 

xiii. 2 . 

, 

• • 193 

xxxvi. 26 . . . 

152 

xiv. 5 . 

, 

. . 191 

xxxvi. 25 . 

370 




xxxix. 25 . 

105 

Malachi 

Daniel 


i. 1 1 . 

, 

• . 385 

iii. 28, 33 . . 


iii. 1 . 

l8l 

, 187, 212 

219 

iii. 1-24 

a 

. . 207 

vii. 9, 10 . . . 

197 

iii. 6 . 

a 

. . 113 

vii. 13 . . . . 

227 

iii. 16 . 

a 

. . 104 

vii. 13, 14 • • 

212 

iv. 1 . 

a 

. . 181 

viii. 10 ... 

191 




ix. 26 . . . . 

182 

Matthew 

x. 5 f., 20, 21 . 

196 




xii. 1, twice . . 

196 

i. 1, 21, 

25 

. . 227 



i. 20 . 


• • 195 

Hosea 


i. 22, .23 


• • 93 


188 

ii. 6 . 


• • 355 

ii. 2 .... 

ii. 13, 19 


• • 195 

xii. 4 ... . 

206 

iii. 1-11 


• • 3 i 3 



iii. 5 • 


. . 183 

Joel 


iii. 6 f. 


. 380, 381 



iii. 6-12 


. • 381 

i. 4-12 . . . . 

127 

iii. 10 . 


. . 181 

i. 18 f 

373 

iii. 11 f. 


. . 380 

ii. 28-32 . . . 

83 

iii. 16 . 


. 235, 244 

iii. 1-5 . . 300, 

367 

iii. 16, 17 


. . 296 



iii. 17 . 


. 1 10, 216 

Amos 


iv. 1 . 


. 198, 244 


164 

iv. 1 f. 


. . 227 

iii. 2 ... . 

iv. 2 . 


. • 231 

ix. 2 . . . . 

Ii 5 

v. 17 ff. 


• • 57 



v. 17, 19 


. . 70 

Obadiah 


v. 22, 29 

CJ 

0 

w 

00 

M 

16 . . . . . 


v. 23, 26 

. 

• • 350 

182 

V. 37 • 

. 

. . 199 


v. 44-48 . 


v. 44 £. . 


v. 45 . . 


V. 48 . . 


vi 10 . . 


vi. 12 . 

. 320 

vi. 13 . . 


vi. 26-30 . 


vii. 7 f. . 


vii. 11 . 


vii. 12 . . 


vii. 18 . . 


vii. 21-23 • 


vii. 22, 23, 

note 

vii. 22-24 • 


viii. 1 1 


viii. 16 


viii. 20 


viii. 27 . 


viii. 28 


viii. 28-34 


ix. 2-6 . 


ix. 4 


ix. 6 . 


ix. 20 . . 


ix. 26 . . 


ix. 32 . . 


ix. 33 , 35 


ix. 34 . . 

. 198 

x. 1 . . 


x. 1, 8 . . 


x. 6, 42 . 


x. 8 . . 


x. 15 • • 


x. 17-22 .. 


X. 19, 20 . 


X. 21 . 


x. 28 . 1 17, 132, 

l8l 

X. 32 , 33 . 

. 213 

x. 32, 37 , 

38 . 

xi. 5 • • 


xi. 1 1 . 


xi. 19 . 


xi. 21 . . 


xi. 21-24 • 


xi. 22 . . 


xi. 25 . . 

• 373 

xi. 27-56 . 

1 10, 

237 (3 times), 

xi. 28 . . 

• • 

xi. 28-30 . 

• • 

xi. 29 . . 

• 57 


PAGE 

253 

342 

109 

145 

198 

, 408 

199 

124 

337 

109 

70 

152 
213 
414 

448 
420 
199 
227 
372 
198 

58 

213 

58 
227 
306 
237 

198 

372 

199 
193 
199 
181 
213 
164 

59 

63 

423 

142, 

. 4 i 7 
, 316 
349 

213 

379 

3i8 

60 

449 

164 

. 375 

213, 

239 

153 

125 

- 327 


xii. 22 . 

PAGE 

. . I98 

xii. 23 . . 

. . 227 

xii. 24 . . 

• • 199 

xii. 25 . . 

. 2l6, 231 

xii. 26 . 

. . 199 

xii. 26-29 . 

• . 187 

xii. 27 . . 

• • 199 

xii. 30 . . 

• • 316 

xii. 32 . . 

. . 446 

xii. 36, 37 

• • 439 

xii. 37 • 

• 3i8, 319 

xii. 40 . . 

• • 59 

xii. 45 . 

• • 193 

xiii. 19, 38 

• • 199 

xiii. 25 . 

• • 199 

xiii. 37, 38 

• • 310 

xiii. 39 

• 193, 199 

xiii. 39-43, 

49, 

50 . . 

• • 437 

xiii. 40 

. . 181 

xiii. 41 

. . 160 

xiii. 41-43 

. . 213 

xiii. 42, 50 

. . 181 

xiv. 18-21 

. • 213 

xv. 24 

. . 181 

xv. 28 . 

• • 199 

xv. 30, 31 

. • 213 

xvi. i*6 

. 216, 349 

xvi. 17-19 

. . 65 

xvi. 1 7, 27 

. • 213 

xvi. 21 

• 252, 423 

xvi. 21-23 

• • 59 

xvi. 27 

. 220, 294 

xvi. 31 

• • 355 

xvii. 5 

. . 216 

xvii. 14 . 

• • 372 

xvii. 15 f. 

. . 198 

xvii. 22, 23 

• • 59 

xvii. 23 . 

• • 423 

xvii. 27 . 

. • 231 

xviii. 3 

. . 164 

xviii. 8, 9 

. . 181 

xviii. 10 . 

.126, 190, 

xviii. 15 f. 

191, 196 
• • 346 

xviii. 15-17 

• • 350 

xviii. 17 . 

• 347, 348 

xviii. 19 . 

. • 337 

xviii. 19, 20 

• • 396 

xviii. 20 . 

. 126, 213 

xix. 3-9 . 

. . 101 

xix. 3, 28 

• • 372 

xix. 8, 9 . 

• • 57 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


PAGE 


XIX. 

13- 

15 • 

• 

377 

xix. 

14 

• • 

• 

164 

xix. 

17 

• • 

• 

58 

xix. 

22 

• • 

. 

373 

xix. 

25 

• • 

• 

372 

xix. 

26 

• • 

. 

1 10 

xix. 

28 

. 372, 

434, 

439 

xix. 

28, 

29 . 

• 

213 

XX. 

17-1 

9, 22, 

23 

59 

XX. 

19 

• • 

• 

423 

XX. 

23 

• • 

• 

59 

XX. 

28 

• 

162, 

246, 


253, 260, 274 


xxi. 9 . 

• • 

227 

xxi. 10, 20 

• • 

372 

xxi. 15 

• • 

60 

xxi. 18 f. . 

• 

231 

xxi. 22 

• • 

337 

xxi. 42 

. 60 

70 

xxii. 27 . 

. 

385 

xxii. 16 . 

. 288, 

372 

xxii. 29 . 

• • 

70 

xxii. 29-33 

• • 

9 i 

xxii. 30 . 120, 190, 

198 

xxii. 36-40 

• • 

70 

xxii. 37 . 

33, 

145 

xxii. 37-39 

• • 

161 

xxii. 39 . 

• • 

146 

xxiii. 8 . 

• • 

348 

xxiii. 33 . 


181 

xxiii. 37 . 

• • 

278 

xxiv. 2, 4, 5 

23- 


26 

• • 

59 

xxiv. 22 . 

• • 

227 

xxiv. 31 . 

• • 

187 

xxiv. 34 . 

• • 

59 

xxiv. 36 . 

• • 

190 

xxiv. 50, 51 

• • 

182 

xxv. 1-13 

• • 

412 

XXV. 10 . 

• • 

385 

xxv. 14-30, 

31- 


46 . . 

• • 

437 

xxv. 21, 23 

• • 

439 

xxv. 31 

• • 

220 

xxv. 31 f . 

• • 

213 

xxv. 31-46 

. 294, 

439 

xxv. 32 . 

• • 

439 

xxv. 34 . 

• • 

1 16 

xxv. 34-40 

• • 

342 

xxv. 4 1 

181, 

199 , 


193, 

194 

xxv. 41-46, 

note 

414 

xxv. 44 f. 

• • 

449 


455 





PAGE 

xxvi. 

1, 2 

• • 

59 

xxvi. 

8 . 

• • 

372 

xxvi. 

26-29 

• 383, 385 

xxvi. 

28 . 

• • 

321 

xxvi. 

31 • 

• • 

455 

xxvi. 

3 i -34 

• • 

59 

xxvi. 

3 i -35 

• • 

213 

xxvi. 

37 • 

. 

227 

xxvi. 

38 . 

• • 

231 

xxvi. 

39 • 

• • 

162 

xxvi. 

41 • 

• • 

132 

xxvi. 

53 • 

>-< 

00 

vj 

192, 




197 

xxvi. 

54 • 

• • 

252 

xxvi. 

54 , 56 

• • 

70 

xxvi. 

64 . 

• • 

227 

xxviii 

w 

00 

• • 

213 

xxviii 

19 . 

294, 

295 , 

30s, 310, 

313, 

3 i 4 , 

349, 368, 372 f. 

XXVIII 

. 19-20 

59 

xxviii 

. 20 

• • 

ii 5 


Mark 


1. 4 . 

• 

• • 3 i 9 

i. 4 f. . 

• 

. 380, 381 

i. 4 , 5 • 

183 

, 3 i 3 , 381 

i. 7 f. . 

• 

. . 380 

i. 9 

• 

. • 361 

i. 24 . 

• 

. . 191 

i. 34 , 39 

• 

• • i 99 

ii. 4, 8 • 

• 

• • 365 

ii. 5-12 

• 

. . 213 

ii. 8 . 

• 

. 58,216 

ii. 10, 11 

• 

. . 60 

ii. 27 . 

• 

. . 401 

iii. 6-12 

• 

. . 381 

iii. 11 . 

• 

• • 193 

iii. 24 . 

• 

• • i 99 

iii. 29 . 

• 

. . 180 

v. 1 

• 

. . 191 

v. 3 f. . 

• 

• • 199 

vi. 7, 12, 

13 

. . 213 

vi. 41, 44 

• 

. • 2x3 

vii. 2, 4, 

8 

• • 365 

viii. 17 

• 

. . 216 

viii. 31 

• 

• 252, 423 

viii. 38 

• 

• 57, 220 

ix. 7 . 

• 

. . 216 

ix. 9 . 

• 

. . 227 

ix. 12 . 

• 

. . 182 

ix. 14-28 

• 

• • 199 


45 6 TEXTUAL INDEX 




PAGE 



PAGE 



PAGE 

ix. i 8 . . 


. 199 

iii. 3 . . 


• 

319 

xiv. 26, 27, 

33 • 

316 

ix. 20, 2 5 . 


187 

iii. 3 f. . 


380, 

381 

xv. 4, 6, 8, 9 

, 1 7 , 


ix. 31 . . 


• 423 

iii. 6 


. 

227 

25, 32 . 

• 

l8l 

ix. 43-48 . 


l8l 

iii. 7-14 . 


• 

381 

XV. 10 . . 

• 

187 

ix. 48 . . 


. 274 

iii. 8 , . 


• 

3 i 3 

xvi. 15 . 

. 107, 

318 

x. 13-16 . 


• 377 

iii. 15 f- • 


• 

380 

xvi. 16 

. 

382 

x. 14 . . 


164 

iii. 18 . . 


. 

379 

xvi. 1 ’6 f. . 

. 

439 

X. 18 . 


. ' 408 

iv. 1 . . 


235 , 

244 

xvi. 17 

• 

70 

X. 34 • • 


• 423 

iv. 18 . .. 


• 

300 

xvi. 19 

• 

142 

x. 38, 39 • 


59 , 369 

iv. 21 . 


• 

70 

xvi. 19-31 

. 

181 

x. 45 • • 


260, 274 

iv. 33, 35, 

36, 


xvi. 22 f. . 

• 

410 

xi. 2-6 . 


. 213 

41 . . 


• 

187 

xvi. 22 

• 

192 

xi. 12-14 • 


. 58 

v. 20-26 . 


• 

213 

xvi. 23 f. . 

. 

420 

xii. 11. 


60 

vi. 18 . . 


• 

199 

xvi. 23, 24 

. 

181 

xii. 14 . 


. 288 

vi. 35 • • 


• 

372 

xvi. 23-26 

. 

444 

xii. 25 . 


. 191 

vii. 11-17 . 


. 

213 

xvii. 22, 25 

• 

59 

xii. 30 . 


• 133 

vii. 21 . 


187, 

199 

xviii. 13 . 

. 

258 

xii. 32 . 190, 231, 244 

vii. 29, 35 


• 

318 

xviii. 14 . 

. 318, 

319 

xii. 36 . . 


• 300 

vii. 30 . . 


• 

380 

xviii. 15-17 

• 

377 

xii. 40 . 


. 181 

viii. 2 . 


187, 

193 

xviii. 16 . 

• • 

164 

xii. 55 . • 


. 227 

viii. 10 


• 

9 i 

xviii. 33 . 

• 

423 

xiii. 11 


63 

viii. nf. 


310, 

412 

xix. 10 

. 181, 

253 

xiii. 14 


59 

viii. 12 


193 , 

198 

xix. 12 f. . 

• 

434 

xiii. 19 


121 

viii. 28, 29 


. 

199 

xix. 16 f. . 

• 

439 

xiii. 31 


56, 57 

viii. 31 


. 

193 

xix. 17-19 

• 

439 

xiii. 32 


190, 231, 

viii. 41-56 


. 

213 

xix. 30-34 

• 

213 



244 

ix. 1, 2 . 


. 

213 

xx. 3 . . 

• 

380 

xiv. 13-16 

. 

59 

ix. 22 . 227, 

252 , 

423 

XX. 21 . 

. 

288 

xiv. 18-21, 

72 . 59 

ix. 26 . . 


57 , 

213 

XX. 24 f. . 

• 

426 

xiv. 22-25 


383, 385 

ix. 39 • • 



199 

XX. 34-38 

. 91, 

430 

xiv. 27-31 


. 213 

ix. 42 . . 



193 

XX. 36 . . 

. 187, 

188 

xiv. 38 


• 132 

ix. 44 . . 



59 

XX. 41 . 


227 

xiv. 62 


. 213 

ix. 55 . . 



135 

xxi. 12, 16, 

20 f. 

59 

xvi. 6 . 


• 313 

x. 22 . 



213 

xxi. 33 . 


57 

xvi. 15, 16 


• 305 

x. 27, 28 . 



161 

xxii. 19, 20 


383 

xvi. 16 . 322, 

372 , 376 

x. 29 . . 



318 

xxii. 26 . 


355 




xi. 13 . . 



337 

xxii. 30 . 


439 

Luke 


xi. 14 . . 



198 

xxii. 37 . 


252 




xi. 18 . . 



199 

xxii. 43 . 


192 

i. 11 f. . 


• 195 

xi. 38 . . 



365 

xxii. 69, 70 


213 

i. 15-17 . 


. 207 

xi. 49 . . 



70 

xxiii. 41 . 


313 

1. 19 . 187, 

191, 197 

xi. 51 . . 



181 

xxiii. 43 . 

181, 400, 

i- 32, 33 • 


• 293 

xii. 1 . 



387 

417, 420 

(2 times) 

i. 32 , 35 • 


. 216 

xii. 7 . . 



109 

xxiv. 4 


188 

i- 35 


. 242 

xii. 8, 9 . 



191 

xxiv. 16 . 


70 

i- 37 • • 


. 1 10 

xii. 11, 12 



63 

xxiv. 7, 26, 

44 , 


i. 47 • • 


• 133 

xii. 22 f. . 



132 

46 . . 


252 

i. 67 . . 


. 300 

xii. 47, 48 



449 

xxiv. 19 . 


227 

i. 68 . . 


. 219 

xii. 48 . . 



164 

xxiv. 21 . 


260 

i* 77 


• 319 

xii. 50 


59 , 

369 

xxiv. 28 . 


58 

ii. 13 f. . 


190, 197 

xiii. 1-5 . 


. 

109 

xxiv. 31 . 


260 

ii. 45 • • 


• 373 

xin. 33 . 59 , 

181, 

252 

xxiv. 39 . 


187 

11. 52 . 227, 

231, 244 

xiv. 14 

• 

• 

426 

xxiv. 44 . 

. 69, 70 


# 



PAGE 

xxiv. 46 . 

. . 70 

xxiv. 47 . 

• 319, 321 

xxiv. 49 . 

. . 300 


John 


i. i . . 

. 110,221 f. 


(3 times) 

i 2 . . 

. . . 121 

i. 3 • • 

. . . 221 

i- 3 , 4 • 

... 23 

i. 4 • • 

. . 224 

i- 4 , 5 • 

221 

i. 6, 14 . 

. . . 221 

i. 7 • • 

291 

i- 9 , 14 , 

16 . . 221 

i. 13 • 

161, 264, 294, 


301 

i. 14 • 

227, 234,291, 


418 

i. 14, 16 

... 58 

i. 14, 18 

. . . 221 

i 14 , 50 

221 

i. 1 7 . 

... 70 

i. 18 . 

. . 221, 225 

i. 22 f. . 

. . . 382 

i. 27 f. . 

. . . 380 

i. 29 

... 274 

i. 29 f., 36 . . 380 

1. 30 . 

. . . 227 

i- 35-49 

. . . 382 

ii. 18-21 

... 423 

ii. 19 . 

. 418 

ii. 19-22 

... 59 

ii. 23 . 

. . . 60 

ii. 24, 25 

. . 58,221 

ii. 25 . 

. • • 231 

iii. 2 . 

. . . 60 

iii* 3 , 5-8 

. . . 301 

iii. 3-7 . 

... 375 

iii. 3-8 . 

• • . 301 

iii. 5 • 

. 3 M £ -, 349 

iii. 5, 6 

... 294 

iii. 6 . 

142, 161, 163 

iii. 10 . 

. . . 126 

iii. 11 . 

. . 56, 230 

iii. 11-13 

• • • 56 

iii. 13 . 114,213, 214, 


215, 231 

iii. 14 . 

. . . 252 

iii. 16 . 109, 118, 270, 


275 , 3i8 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


iii. 16, 17 

PAGE 

. 246, 253, 

iii. 16-18, 

278 

35, 36 221 

iii. 16, 36 

146 

iii. 17, 34 

. . . 207 

iii. 19 . 

. . 163, 164 

iii. 23 . 

. .361,362 

iii. 25 f. 

. . . 380 

iii. 34 • 

• • 235, 244 

iii- 34 , 35 

. . no 

iii. 36 . 

. •*. . 322 

iv. 1 

• • • 349 

iv. 1, 2 

. . . 382 

iv. 14 . 

. . 83, 180 

iv. 22 . 

• • 56, 230 

iv. 24 . 

. .113, 222 

iv. 34 . 

57, no, 270 

v. passim 

. . 214 

v. 5 , 1 2, 

20 . . 327 

v. 6 

. . . 221 

v. 17 . 

. . . 401 

v. 1 7-27, 

36, 43 213, 

v. 17, 19, 

214 

20, 21, 



26 

• 

• 

• 

239 

V. 

19 

• 

• • 

• 

296 

V. 

19, 

20, 

36 . 

• 

236 

V. 

19, 

21 

. 

• 

237 

V. 

19, 

28- 

30 . 

• 

276 

V. 

20 

. 

. 

56 , 

237 

V. 

22, 

23, 

27 

. 

237 

V. 

22, 

27, 

29 . 

. 

439 

V. 

25- 

29 

. 

. 

303 

V. 

26 

. 

. 

107, 

113 

V. 

27 

. 

. 

227, 

440 

V. 

28, 

29 

. 

. 

426 

V. 

29 

. 

433 , 

437 , 

447 

V. 

30 

. 

57 , 

1 10, 

162 

V. 

36 

. 


. 

207 

V. 

36, 

37 


. 

60 

V. 

39 

. 


• 

70 

vi. 

29, 

57 


• 

207 

vi. 

35 

. 


. 

294 

vi. 

38 

. 


. 

57 

vi. 

G, 

0° 

50 , 

5 i, 

62 

213 

vi. 

39 

• 


. 

181 

vi. 

40 

. 


213, 

322 

vi. 

40, 

44 

54 

. 

437 

vi. 

44 

. 


. 

303 

vi. 

44 , 

65 


. 

152 

vi. 

46 

• 


. 

56 

vi. 

48 

• 

. 

. 

224 

vi. 

5 i, 

53 

54 

. 

384 



457 


PAGE 

vi. 54 . 

. . 327 , 426 

vi. 61, 64 

. . . 221 

vi. 64 . 

• . • 58 

vi. 64, 70 

. . . 412 

vii. 16 . 

. • • 56 

vii. 18 . 

. . 57, 162 

vii. 28, 29 

• • 56 

vii. 29 . 

. . . 207 

vii. 38 . 

. . . 70 

vii. 38, 39 . 64, 65, 


83 

vii. 39 . 

. . 236 

viii. 28 

• • 56 

viii. 29 

• • 56 

viii. 36 

. . 293 

viii. 38 

• • 56 

viii. 40 

. . 226 f. 

viii. 44 

• • 193 


(2 times) 

viii. 50 

. . 162 

viii. 55 

. . 56 

viii. 58 

1 14, 214, 

215, 221, 231, 237, 


239 

ix. 4 . 

56, 230, 252 

x. passim 

. . . 214 

X. II f. 

• • 355 

x. 11, 14, 

15 • 125 

x. 11, 15 

. . 270 

x. 14, 17, 

18 . 423 

x. 15 . 

• • 56 

x. 27, 28 

. . 293 

X. 28 . 

. . 181 

x. 28-30 

• 239, 4i4 


(note) 

X. 30-38 

. . 56 

X. 35 . 

. . 70 

x. 37 , 38 . 

213, 214 ff. 

xi. 5, 33, 35 • • 231 

xi. 13, 14 

. . 221 

xi. 24 f. 

• 426, 433 

xi. ^5 . 

46, 214, 224 

xi. 25, 26 

. . 430 

xi. 33 , 35 

. . 227 

xi. 43 • 

• • 303 

xi. 51 . 

. . 300 

xii. 6 . 

. 412 

xii. 7, 23, 

32-34 59 

xii. 14 f. 

. . 70 

xn. 24, 27, 32, 

33 • • 

. . 252 

xii. 24, 32 

. . 423 

xii. 24, 32 

, 33 • 59 


45 8 


PAGE 


xii. 

25 

• 

• 

162 

xii. 

3 i • 

• 

• . 

199 




(2 times) 

xii. 

32 

• 

• 

303 

xii. 

34 

• 

• 

252 

xii. 

35 , 

36, 

45 , 


46 . 

• 

. 

214 

xii. 

48 . 

• 

• 

57 

xii. 

49 

. 

. 

56 

xiii. 

2 . 

• 

. i 93 j 

198 

xiii. 

4 -i. 

3 • 

. 

57 

xiii. 

10 

• 

. • 

361 

xiii. 

11, 

18- 

26 . 

59 

xiii. 

18 

• 

. 

70 

xiii. 

18, 

19 

• 

412 

xiv. 

1 

. 

. 

332 

xiv. 

6 

56 

t— 1 

00 

0 

214, 

224, 262, 

294 , 

327, 





387 

xiv. 

9 • 

214 

, 239, 

293, 





327 

xiv. 

10 

. 

• 

235 

xiv. 

10- 

24 

• 

56 

xiv. 

13 

. 

. 

332 

xiv. 

15 - 

17, 

26 . 

63 

xiv 

16 

. 65, 294 

, 295 


xiv. 16-21 . . 330 

xiv. 16, 26 . 180, 262 

xiv. 23 . 56, 57, 230 

xiv. 26 .64 (2 times), 
264, 300 

xiv. 30 . . . 199 

(2 times) 

xv. 1, 4 . . . 294 

xv. 1-6 . .330,412 

xv. 5 . 152, 327, 387 

xv. 6 . . . . 18 1 

xv. 7 ... . 57 

xv. 13 ... 275 

xv. 16 . . . . 332 

xv. 22, 24 . . 164 

xv. 26 . 64, 262, 294, 

295 (2 times), 300 

xv. 26, 27 63 

xvi. 7 f. . . . 435 

xvi. 7, 8, 13 . . 295 

xvi. 7-11 . . 59, 199 

(2 times) 

xvi. 7, 13-15 . 64 

xvi. 7-15 . 63, 294, 

295 

xvi. 8-1 1 ... 65 

xvi. 8-12 . . . 301 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


xvi. 8-15 . . 

PAGE 

. 262 

xvi. 11 . . 

. 199 

xvi. 13 

. 300 

xvi. 14, 15 • 

. 64 

(- 

2 times) 

xvi. 15 . . 

214, 215 

xvi. 23 

• 327 

xvi. 23, 24 . 

262 

(2 times;, 332 

xvi. 30 

• 58 

xvii. 2 . 

. 227 

xvii. 3 . 

. 114 

xvii. 3, 8, 21 

. 207 

xvii. 4 . 

. 276 

xvii. 5 . . . 

• 213 

xvii. 5, 24 . 

. 120 

xvii. 8 

• 56 

xvii. 10 . 

1 18, 214 

xvii. 10-12 . 

. 56 

xvii. 10-22 . 

56 

xvii. 11, 12, note 414 

xvii. 11, 21, 22 . 56 

xvii. 12 . 

70, 181, 

xvii. 15 

412 

• 199 

xvii. 24 . . 

. no 

xviii. 4 

. 58 

xviii. 9 

. 412 

xviii. 36 . 

. 293 

xix. 11 . . 

164, 274 

xix. 24, 36 . 

70 

xix. 28-30 

276 

xix. 36 . . 

• 385 

xx. 9 . 

. 252 

XX. 21 . 

126 

xx. 22, 23 

64, 65 

xx. 26, 27, 28 

180 

xx. 28 

221, 223 

xx. 29 . 

• 435 

xxi. 16 

• 355 

xxi. 17 

58, 231 

xxi. 18 

34 , 59 


Acts 


i. 

2 . . 

• 235 , 

244 

i. 

4 , 5 • • 


367 

i. 

5 , 8 . . 


64 

i. 

10 


188 

i. 

16, 20 . 


70 

i. 

21 f. 


35 i 

i. 

23 • . 


348 


PAGE 


i. 24 

58, 333 

ii. 4, 6, 7 . . 

. 65 

ii. 15-21 . . 

• 83 

ii. 16 f. . . 

. 300 

ii. 16, 23, 25, 30, 

31 ... 

• • 70 

ii. 17 . 

. 227 

ii. 17, 18 . . 

68 

ii. 17, 18, 33 

• 367 

ii. 17, 21 . 

64, 65 

ii. 21 . . 

• 333 

ii. 22 . 

• 236 

11. 23 . 1 16, 245, 252, 


274 

ii. 24 f. . 

• 425 

ii. 27 . 

. 132 

ii. 33 . 262 

293 , 294 

ii. 37 • • 

• 305 

ii- 37-41 • 

• 3 i 3 

ii. 38 . 319 

321, 368 

ii. 38, 41 . 

• 373 

ii. 41 . 

349 , 365 

ii. 41, 42 . 

• 392 

ii. 42 . 

• 385 

iii. 15 f. . 

• 425 

iii. 16 . 

• 323 

iii. 18, 21 

• 252 

iii. 18, 21-26 

70 

iii. 19 . 

•. 153 

iii. 19-21 . 

59 , 67 

iii. 38 . . 

• 368 

iv. 4 

• 365 

iv. 10 . . 

• 425 

iv. 10-12 . 

. 252 

iv. 12 . 

. 262 

iv. 15 . . 

• 348 

iv. 24, 27 . 

. 209 

iv. 25 . . 

70 

iv. 27, 28 

. 1 16 

v. 3 , 4 • 

no, 295 

v. 7 

• 385 

v. 1 1 . . 

• 347 

v. 19 . . 

126, 195 

V. 20, 30 . 

• 425 

V. 3 1 . . 

• 319 

V. 34 • • 

108 

v. 36 . . 

98, 182 

vi. 1 ff. . 

• 353 

vi. 3 . . 

348 , 351 

vi. 3 , 4 , 5 

• 348 

vii. 38 . . 

• 347 

vii. 51 . . 

. 296 

vii. 53 . . 

• 195 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


459 


vii. 56 . . 

PAGE 

. . 227 

vii. 59 • • 

• 332 , 417 

viii. 1 . . 

. - 347 

viii. 12 

• 313 , 376 

viii. 12, 13 

• 349 , 373 

viii. 14-17 

. • 65 

viii. 16 

. . 368 

viii. 26 

• • 195 

viii. 36-39 

• • 364 

viii. 38, 39 

. . 361 

viii. 40 

• • 359 

ix. 14, 2 1 

• • 332 

ix. 15 . . 

. . 285 

ix. 18 . . 

• • 373 

ix. 31 . . 

• • 347 

ix. 39 . . 

. . 361 

x. 22 . 

. . 191 

X. 34 , 35 • 

. . 288 

x. 36, 37 • 

. • 382 

x. 36, 42 . 

. . 2x7 

x. 38 . . 

. 236, 300 

x. 40 . 

. . 425 

x. 41, 42 . 

. . 294 

X. 43 • • 

• 70 , 319 

x. 44-47 . 

• • 373 

x. 44-48 . 

• • 3 i 4 

xi. 3 ff. . 

• • 376 

xi. 22, 26 . 

• • 347 

00 

cs 

<N 

• H 

X 

. . 68 

xi. 29, 30 . 

• . 352 

xi. 30 . . 

. 355 , 356 

xii. 1, 5 . 

• • 347 

xii. 7 . . 

. 187, 195 

xii. 15 

. . 196 

xiii. 1 . . 

(2. times) 

• 347 , 355 

xiii. 1-3 . 

• - 358 

xiii. 2, 3 . 

• • 35 i 

xiii. 2, 4 . 

. . 296 

xiii. 9-1 1 . 

. . 65 

xiii. 33 • 

. . 209 

xiii. 38, 39 

• • 3 i 9 

xiii. 39 . 

. . 318 

xiii. 48 

. . 285 

xiv. 3, 8-10 

. . 65 

xiv. 23 

346 , 355 , 

xiv. 23, 27 

356 , 39 i 
• • 347 

xiv. 26, 27 

. • 35i 

xiv. 26-28 

. • 346 

XV. 1 . 

. • 376 

XV. 2 . 

. 348 , 35 i 

xv. 2, 3 . 

. • 346 


xv. 2, 4 

6, 22, 

PAGE 

23 • 

. 

355 

xv. 3, 4, 

22, 41 . 

347 

xv. 17 . 

. 

373 

XV. 18 . 

. 

1 16 

xv. 19 . 

. 

323 

XV. 22 . 

. 

355 

xv. 27 . 

. 

373 

XV. 37, 39 . . 

67 

xvi. 3 . 

. 

376 

xvi. 4 . 

• 

355 

xvi. 5 . 

. 

347 

xvi. 7 . 

. 

2 97 

xvi. 8 . 

. 

391 

xvi. 14 
xvi. 14, 

15, 3D 

304 

33 • 

. 

373 

xvi. 14, 

3 i -33 • 

3 i 3 

xvi. 15 

. 

377 

xvi. 15, 

33 , 34 • 

376 

xvi. 30 

. 

305 

xvi. 31 

. 

322 

xvi. 33 

. 

361 

xvii. 24 

. 

113 

xvii. 26 

. 1 16, 

135 , 


136 f., 146 


xvii 

26, 

27 

• 113, 125 

xvii 

27, 

28 

. . 115 

xvii 

28 

. 

. 22, 123 

xvii 

31 

. 

227, 294, 




437 , 439 

xvm. 8 

. 

3 i 3 , 373 , 




376 , 377 

xviii. 22 


. • 347 

xviii. 24 

-28 

. . 382 

xix. 

I f 

• 

. . 380 

xix. 

4 • 

• 

. • 380 




(2 times) 

xix. 

5 • 

• 

. • 368 

xix. 

6 . 

• 

. . 65 

xix. 

11, 

12 

. . 65 

xix. 

12, 

15 

. . 187 

xix. 

12- 

16 

• • 193 

xix. 

15 

. 

. . 191 

xix. 

32, 

39, 

41 • 347 

XX. 

7 • 

. 

. 391, 401 

XX. 

7 , 1 

[ . 

• • 385 

XX. 

1 7 • 

. 

• 346 , 355 

XX. 

17 , 

28 

• 347 , 354 

XX. 

24 

. 

. . 318 

XX. 

28 . 

21 

9 , 346 , 347 


(note), 355 (2 



times), 356 


PAGB 

xx. 29, 30, 31, 


37 , 38 

• • . 373 

xxi. 8 . 

• • • 359 

xxi. 9 . 

. . . 68 

xxi. 1 1 

. .*297, 300 

xxi. 18 

- • • 355 

xxi. 20 

. . . 376 

xxii. 14, 

15 • • 424 

xxii. 16 

• 3 i 4 , 3 i 5 , 

333 , 361, 370 , 373 

xxiii. 3-5 

. . . 66 

xxiv. 15 

. 426, 433, 

447 

xxiv. 18 

• 304 , 319 , 

323 

xxvi. 20 

• -313,381 

xxvii. 22 

-25, 31 412 

xxviii. 25 . 294, 296 


Romans 


i. 1 

• 

. . 65 

i. 3 • • 

49 , 219, 227 

i- 3 , 4 , 

? 

. . 217 

i. 4 - 


. 302, 424 

i. 7 . 


. 217 

i. 1 7 - 


• 317, 323 

i. 18 £. 


. . 161 

i. 19, 20 


. . 307 

i. 20 . 


. . 113 

i. 25 . 


. . 219 

i. 32 . 


. . 168 

ii. 4 . 


. . 325 

ii. 4, 6 . 


. . 146 

ii. 6 


. . 440 

ii. 11 . 


. . 288 

ii. 12 . 

164, 183, 449 

ii. 12-16 


• • 437 

ii. 13 • 


. 108, 318 

ii. 13, 16 


• - 319 

ii. 18, 20 


. . 80 

ii. 25 . 


. . 160 

ii. 28, 29 


. - 132 

iii. 2, 19, 

21 

. 82, 103 

iii. 4 . 

4 , 

20, 24, 26, 

28, 

30 

318, 322 

iii. 5 - 

• 

. . 105 

iii. 9 . 

• 

. . 163 

iii. 20 . 

• 

. . 228 

iii. 21-30 

• 

. - 317 

iii. 22, 25, 

28 . 322, 
323 


460 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


PAGE 


260, 318, 319 
2 5 -320, 321 
258, 260, 275 


111. 24 . 
iii. 24, 
iii. 25 . 
iii. 25, 26 
iii. 26*. 
iii. 28 . 

iii. 30, 31 

iv. 1 . 
iv. 2, 5 
iv. 4, 16 


254, 2 74 

201, 291 

• 323 

• 323 

. 161 

. 318 

. 318 


iv. 5 . 
iv. 5, 13, 
iv. 6-8 
iv. 7, 8 
iv. 15 . 
iv 15 . 
iv. 16 . 

iv. 25 . 

v. 1 

v. 1, 6 . 


14 


317 

322 
3i9 
260 
164 
164 

323 

424 


32 


2, 323 
318 


v. 1, 11 

V. 2 
v. 3 f. 
V. 5 • 

v. 6 
v. 9 . 


• 324 

• 323 

• 325 

126, 301 
. 264 

• * 3i9 


v. 9, 18, 19 . . 320 

v. 10 . . . . 424 

v. 1 1 . . . . 248 

v. 12 . 137, 142, 163 

(2 times), 171, 172, 





173, 

174 

V. 

13 • 


. 160, 

164 

V. 

15 • 


. 226, 

318 

V. 

1 7 • 


. • 

439 

V. 

19 . 


•183, 

228 

vi. 

1, 14, 

20 

. 

320 

vi. 

2 . 


. 

315 

vi. 

2-14 


. 

302 

vi. 

3 • 


• 369, 

374 

vi. 

3-5 


.362, 

374 

vi. 

4 • 


. 

369 

vi. 

4, 5, 8 

1 

1, 13 

302 

vi. 

6 . 


. 

409 

vi. 

7 • 



3i8 

vi. 

1 1 . 


• 

294 

vi. 

15, i; 

7 , 

22 . 

325 

vi. 

19 . 


. 

160 

vii. 

5, 7, 

9 

. 

320 

vii 

7-12 


. 

70 

vii. 

w 

00 

18 

, 23, 


24 . 


. 

161 

vii 

12 


•v 

00 

108 



PAGE 


PAGE 

viii. 3 . 227, 242 f., 

xii. 8 . . . 


355 


248 

xii. 19 . . 


105 

viii. 3, 29, 

32 . 217 

xii. 20 f. . . 


70 

viii. 68 

. . 161 

xiii. 4 . . . 


444 

viii. 7 . . 

. . 164 

xiv. 1 . . . 


348 

viii. 8-10 . 

• • 330 

xiv. 5 . . . 


399 

viii. 9 . 217 (2 times), 

xiv. 7 . . . 


162 


294, 297 

xiv. 9 . 


293 

viii. 10-13 

. . 408 

xiv. 9, 10 


439 

viii. 13 

• • 330 

xiv. 10 

294, 

439 

viii. 14 ff. 

. 141, 329 

xiv. 12 . . 


183 

viii. 15, 26, 

27, 

xiv. 23 . . 


323 

32 . . 

. . 262 

xv. 3 . . . 


162 

viii. 17, 30, 

31, 

xv. 16 . . . 


301 

32 . . 

. . 324 

xv. 18, 19, 29 . 

217 

viii. 23 

. 260, 261 

xv. 25 . . 


373 

viii. 24, 25 

. . 309 

xv. 30 . . 


296 

viii. 26 . 

. 126, 329 

xvi. 1 . 


359 

viii. 26, 27 

. . 262 

xvi. 12 


353 

viii. 27 

. 107, no 

xvi. 1, 4, 16, 

23 

347 

viii. 28 . 

116, 325, 

xvi. 20 


217 


329 

xvi. 17 . . 


394 

viii. 28, 30 

. 284, 303, 




414 (note) 

1 Corinthians 

viii. 29, 30 

. . 302 




viii. 30 . 

• . 319 

i. 1 . . . . 

65, 217 

viii. 30, 33 

• 317, 318 

i. 2 . . 218, 

333, 

347 

viii. 32 . 

• 253, 293 

i. 3 • • • • 

• 

218 

viii. 33, 34 

■ 252, 319 

i. 3, 4 • • • 

• 

253 

viii. 34 . 

. . 294 

i. 4 • • • • 

• 

318 

viii. 35-39, 

note 414 

i. 10 . . . 

• 

394 

viii. 38 . 

. . 197 

i. 14-15 • • 

• 

314 

ix. 4 . . 

. . 82 

i. 14-16 . . 

• 

67 

ix. 5 . . 

.218, 219 

i. 16 . . 

376, 

377 

ix. 11 . . 

. 1 16, 283 

i. 17,- 18, 21 . 

• 

314 

ix. 11, 24 

. . 284 

i. 21 . . . 

• 

372 

ix. 25 . . 

. . 71 

i. 23 . . . 

• 

270 

ix. 30, 32 

• • 323 

i. 23, 24 . 

262, 

292, 

x. 3 • • 

• • 3i7 



293 

x. 6 . . 

• • 323 

i. 24 . . . 

• 

303 

x. 9 . . 

• • 3i5 

i. 26 . . . 


161 

x. 17 . . 

• • 310 

i. 26, 30 . . 

* 

n8 

x. 17, 18 . 

• 305, 307 

i. 30 . . . 

260, 

321 

xi. 5, 6 . 

. . 318 

ii. 2 . . . 

292, 

293 

xi. 20 . . 

• • 323 

ii. 6 f. . . 


65 

xi. 25 . . 

. . 67 

ii. 7 . . . 


1 16 

xi. 25, 32 . 

• . 183 

ii. 8, 16 . . 


218 

xi. 36 . . 

. . 118 

ii. 10 . . . 


1 10 

xii. 3 . . 

. . 329 

ii. 10, 11 . . 


294 

xii. 4 f. . 

• • 353 

ii. 1 1 . . . 


298 

xii. s . . 

. . 294 

ii. 13, 14, 15 


329 

xii. 6-8 . 

• • 300 

iii. 1-4 . . 


161 

xii. 7 f. . 

• • 353 

iii. 5 . . . 

. 

329 




PAGE 

iii. 10 . 


• • 65 

iii. 13 . 


• • 437 

iii. 15 . 


. . 181 

iii. 16 . 


• 83, 330 

iii. 16, 17 


. 205, 295 

iii. 21, 22 


• • 325 

iii. 22, 23 


. . 118 

iv. 4 . 


. . 318 

iv. 5 • 


• 217, 437 

iv. 15 . 301 

, 310, 314, 



375 

iv. 17 . 


• 346 , 347 

v. 1-13 


• 346 , 350 

v. 3 , 5 • 


• . 132 

v. 4 


. . 217 

v. 5 -i 3 


• 349 , 385 

v. 7, 8 . 

383, 384, 385 

v. 13 • 


• 348 , 350 

vi. 2 . 


• 434 , 439 

vi. 4 . 


• • 347 

vi. 9, 10 


. . 183 

vi. 11 . 


. 318, 361 

vi. 13 • 


• • 427 

vi. 14 . 


. . 426 

vi. 1 6 . 


. . 132 

vi. 19 . 


• 295, 330 

vi. 20 . 


. 1 18, 260 

vii. 12 


. 130, 217 

vii. 14 . 

163,371, 377 

vii. 15 . 


. . 346 

vii. 17 


• • 347 

vii. 19 


. . 181 

.vii. 23 


. . 260 

vii. 34 


• • 132 

viii. 4 


. 181, 200 

viii. 6 . 


. . 217 

viii. 1 1 


. . 412 

viii. 12 


. . 348 

ix. 1 . 


. 65, 424 

ix. 14 cf. 

7 - 

11 . 346, 



353 

ix. 31 . 


• • 347 

x. 1-6 . 


• • 7 1 

x. 4 . 


49 , 207 f. 

x. 15-21 


• 384, 390 

x. 16 . 


. . 384 

x. 16, 17 


. 385, 390 

X. 20 , 21 


. . 200 

X 21 , 22 


218 

X. 22 . 


• • 105 

x. 24, 33 


. . 162 

X. 28 . 


• • 77 

X. 31 . 


. . 118 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


PAGE 


x. 32 . . 

• • 347 

xi. 4 . 

. . 68 

xi. 1 6, 18, 22 . 347 

xi. 18-34 '• 

. . 390 

xi. 23-25 . 

• 383, 387 

xi. 23, 26 

. . 49 

xi. 24-26 . 

• 384, 385 

xi. 27 . 

218 

xi. 27-29 . 

• 385, 388 

xi. 32 . . 

• • 325 

xii. passim 

. • 65 

xii. 3, 9 • 

. . 329 

xii. 4-6 

.110, 296 

xii. 5-11, 28 

-31 • 84 

xii. 5, 6 . 

. . 297 

xii. 8 . . 

. • 65 

xii. 8-1 1 . 

. . 296 

xii. 1 1 

. 65, 296 

xii. 12 

. 294, 346 

xii. 12, 27 

. . 49 

xii. 12 f. . 

• 348, 353 

xii. 12 ff., 

28 . 358 

xii. 27 

. 49, 294 

xii. 28 

• 300, 347 

(note), 353 

xn. 28, 29 

• • 355 

xiii. passim 

• • 65 

xiii. 5 . . 

. . 162 

xiv. passim 

. . 65 

xiv. 1-25 . 

. . 84 

xiv. 4-35 

• • 347 

xiv. 12 

• • 135 

xiv. 15 . 

. . 329 

xiv. 18, 19 

• . 65 

xiv. 20 

. . 164 

xiv. 24-32 

. . 68 

xiv. 28 

• • 77 

xiv. 33, 40 

. . 346 

xiv. 34-36 

. . 346 

xv. 3 . . 

. • 321 

xv. 3-8 . 

. . 424 

xv. 3-58 . 

. . 426 

xv. 3-1 1 . 

. . 49 

xv. 9, note 

• • 347 

xv. 21 

. . 226 

xv. 21, 22 

• • 137 

xv. 21, 22, 

45 • 163 

xv. 22 

. . 142 

xv. 23, 24 

• • 433 

xv. 24, 25 

. . 217 

xv. 25 

. . 194 

xv. 28 

. . 22 

xv. 28, 29 

. . 183 


46l 


PAGE 


xv. 35, 36, 

38 . 426 

XV. 36-38 

. .430 f. 

xv. 42-54 . 

. 427, 430 

XV. 44 . 

• 133,427 

xv. 44, 46, 

49 , 

53 , 54 • 

. . 142 

xv. 51, 52 

• 43 L 436 

xv. 51-54 

• • 59 

xv. 56, 57 

• • 443 

xv. 58 . . 

• • 373 

xvi. 1, 2 . 

. . 346 

xvi. 1, 19 

• • 347 

xvi. 2 . . 

. . 401 

xvi. 15, 17 

• • 376 

xvi. 22 

• • 183 

xvi. 23 . 

217 

2 Corinthians 

i. 2 . . . 

. . 217 

i. 3 • • • 

. . 219 

i. 12 . . 

. . 161 

i. 19 . . 

. 217 

i. 24 . . 

• • 323 

ii. 6 . . 

• 349 , 352 

ii. 12, 13 . 

• • 39 i 

n. 15 . . 

• • 325 

iii. 16 . . 

• • 330 

iii. 17 . . 

. . 217 

iii. 18 . . 

• • 330 

iv. 2 ff. . 

• • 58 

iv. 4, 2 times . 199 

iv. 4, 5 . 

. . 217 

iv. 10, 11 . 

. . 294 

iv. 13 . . 

. . 329 

iv. 14 . . 

. . 426 

iv. 15 . . 

. 1 18, 325 

iv. 17 . .' 

• 325, 346 

iv. 17, 18 

. . 309 

v. 1 . . . 


v. 2 . . . 


v. 7 . . . 

• • 323 

v. 8 . . . 

.410, 420 

v. 10 .217 

437 , 439 , 


440 

V. 10, 15 . 

. . 294 

v. 14 . 254, 255, 270 

V. 14, 21 . 

. 49, 274 

v. 15 . 162, 293, 302 

v. 17 . . 

. 294, 303 

v. 18, 19 . 

• • 253 

V. 20 . . 

. 217, 293 

V. 20 , 21 . 

. . 292 


462 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


PAGE 

v. 21 . 49, 254, 255, 

256 , 

317 , 321 

vi. 14 . . . 

. 160 

vi. 16 . 

• 295 

vi. 18 . . . 

. 1 10 

vi. 20 . 

• 293 

vii. 1 . 

. 132 

vii. 15 . . . 

• 346 

vii. 17 . . . 

• 346 

viii. passim . 

• 352 

viii. 9 . . . 

• 253 

ix. passim . 

• 352 

x. 8 . . . 

. 217 

xi. 14 . 60, 

191, 198 

xi. 16 . . . 

34 , 349 

xi. 31 . . . 

217, 219 

xii. 2, 3 . . 

67 

xii. 7 . 

. 199 

xii. 8 . . . 

218 

xii. 11 . 

182 

xii. 12 ff. 

346 , 39 i 

xiii. 11 . . 

. 109 

xiii. 13 

294 , 296 

xiii. 14 . 

. 217 

xiv. 33, 40 . 

• 346 


Galatians 


i. 3 • . 

• 217, 347 

i. 4 • • • 

. . 321 

i. 13, note 

• • 347 

i. 15 • • 

. . 285 

i. 16 . 

228 

ii. 5 • • 

. . 58 

ii. 6 . . 

. . 288 

ii. 6-9 . . 

. . 6 S 

ii. 10 . 

• • 352 

ii. 11 . 

. . 408 

ii. 11-13 . 

. . 66 

ii. 12 f. . 

• • 376 

ii. 1 6 . . 

. 322, 323 

ii. 16, 17 . 

. . 318 

ii. 16-20 . 

. 322, 323 

ii. 19, 20 . 

. . 302 

11. 20 . 118, 217, 253, 

275 , 293, 294 

11. 23-24 . 

. . 70 

iii. 1 . . 

. . 292 

iii. S, 7, 8, 9, 

11, 

24 . . 

• • 323 

iii. 6 f. 

• 322 , 375 

iii. 7, 26 . 

• • 375 

iii. 8 . . 

• 7 L 3 I 7 



PAGE 

iii. 8, ii, 24 

. • 318 

iii. 10 . . 

. . 294 

iii. 10, 13 . 

. 254,256 

iii. 13 • 49 

, 260, 274, 


320, 321 

iii. 16 . 

. 91,92 

iii. 16, 17, 28 . 275 

111. 19 . 

• 195, 320 

iii. 22 . 

. . 322 

iii. 23, 24 

. . 70 

iii. 26 . . 

. . 188 

iii. 26 f. . 

• 348 , 37.5 

iii. 27 . . 

• • 374 

iii. 28 . 

. . 92 

iv. 4 . . 23, 49, 203, 

217, 

228, 234 

iv. 4, 5 • 

. . 246 

iv. 5, 6 . 

. . 188 

iv. 6 f. . 141, 217, 294, 


297 , 329 

iv. 7 . . 

. . 348 

iv. 9, 10 . 

• • 399 

iv. 19 . . 

• . 301 

iv. 21-31 . 

. . 71 

v. 5 • • 

• • 323 

v. 12 . 

• • 394 

V. 15 • . 

. . 181 

V. 16 . . 

. . 161 

v. 17 . 

. 330, 408 

v. 19-20 . 

• • 330 

v. 19-21 . 

• . 183 

V. 22 . 

. 126, 329 

vi. 3 • • 

182 

vi. 6 . 

• 346 , 353 

vi. 7-10 . 

. . 440 

vi. 10 . 

. . 348 

vi. 15 . . 

• • 303 

vi. 18 . . 

. . 217 


Ephesians 


i. 

2 . 

• 

• 


217 

i. 

3 - 6 , 

note 


414 

i. 

4 • 

• 

• 


120 

i. 

4 , 5 , 

9 , 

I I 


284 

i. 

5 • 

« 

• 


118 

i. 

6, 7 

• 

• 


318 

i. 

7 

• 

253 

260, 

319 , 





320, 

321 

i. 

10 

• 

. 

. . 

193 

i. 

10, 21, 

22 

. 194 

275 

i. 

10, 

21 

-23 

• 

246 

i. 

10, 22, 

23 

• • 

245 


i. 11. 


PAGE 

• 113 

i. n-14, 

note . 414 

i. 14 . 


. 296 

i. 17 . 


260, 329 

i. 21 . 


. 197 

i. 21, 22 


. 217 

i. 22, note . 

. 347 

i. 22, 23 


• 293 

ii. 3 • • 


. 163 

ii. 4 


1 18, 253 

ii. s, 6 


. 302 

H-* • 

VI 

00 


. 318 

ii. 8 . 


• 322 

ii. 8-10 


. 118 

ii. 10 . 

152, 

294 , 303 

ii. 18 f. 


• 348 

ii. 18-20 


. 1 10 

ii. 20 f. 


65, 108, 

ii. 22 . 

217 

295 , 296, 330 

iii. 10 . 

190, 

197 , 246, 


275, 347 (note) 


111. 15 

. 

. . 197 

iii. 16, 

17 • 

• • 330 

iii. 17 

. 

. . 322 

iii. 19 

• 

. . 217 

iii. 20 

. 

. . 1 10 

iv. 6 

. 

22 

iv. 1 1 

. 

• 355 , 359 

iv. 11, 

12 

• • 354 

iv. 13 

. 

. . 217 

iv. 15, 

16 

. 245, 294 

iv. 21 

. 

. • 58 

iv. 22, 

24 . 

. . 409 

iv. 24 

. 

• 145 , 303 

iv. 30 

. 

. 145, 296 

v. 5 

. 

. 217, 219 

v. 5, 6 

. 

. • 183 

v. 8 

. 

• 83, 304 

v. 16 

. . 

. . 260 

V. 16, 

17 • 

• • 330 

V. 18, 

19 • 

. . 329 

V. 18, 

21 . 

• • 373 

V. 20 

• 

. 118, 325 

v. 23 

• 

. 210, 293 

v. 23, 27, 29, 

note 347 

V. 25 

• 

• • 343 

V. 26 

• 314,361,370 

v. 29, 

3 i • 

. . 294 

vi. 5-9 

. 

. . 293 

vi. 8 

. 

. . 440 

vi. 9 

. 

. . 288 

vi. 11, 

12 . 

• • 193 


vi. 12 . 


PAGE 

. 200, 228 

vi. 16 . 

. . 

. . 199 

vi. 1 7, 18 


• • 373 

vi. 23, 24 

• 

. . 217 

Philippians 

i. 1 . . 346, 353, 354, 

i. 6 . . 


355 , 356 
. 329, 414 

i. 9, 11 


(note) 

. • 327 

i. 19 . 


. 294, 297 

i. *21-24 


. . 420 

i. 23 . 


. . 410 

i. 27 . 


• • 133 

ii. 4, 21 


. . 162 

ii. 5 ff. 


253, 264, 

ii. 6 


327 

. 218, 234 

n. 7 • 


• • 235 

VI 

00 


226 

ii. 9-1 1 


. 183, 246 

ii. 10, 11 


. • 275 

ii. 12 . 


. . 369 

ii. 13 • 

126, 152, 329 

iii. 3 • 


. . 296 

iii. 4 . 


. . 161 

iii. 6, note 

• • 347 

iii. 9 . 


• 254, 322 

iii. 10 . 


. . 328 

iii. 11 . 


. 426, 433 

iii. 12 . 


. . 408 

iii. 20, 21 


• • 293 

iii. 21 . 


. 427, 428 

iv. 13 . 


. . 126 

Colo s sian s 

i. 9 . . 



i. 14 . 


. 319, 321 

i. 14 • 

260, 319, 321 

i. 15 • 

. 

. 113, 217 

i. I 5 -I 7 

. 

. . 245 

i. 16 . 

. 

. 1 18, 197 

i. 16, 17 


. . 217 

i. 16-20 

. 

• • 275 

i. 17 . 

. 

. . 123 

i. 18 . 

. 

. 217, 293 

i. 18-20 

. 

. 245, 246 

i. 18-24, 

note . 347 

i. 19 • 

. 

. . 217 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


i. 20 . 1 

PAGE 

83, 193, 194, 

i. 21-24 

260 

. . . 419 

i. 23 . 

. . . 183 

ii. 5 • 

. . . 132 

ii. 9 . 

. . . 218 

ii. 10, 15 

. . . 197 

ii. 11, 12 

. . . 315 

ii. 12 . 

. . 362, 369 

ii. 16 . 

• • • 399 

ii. 18 . 

. . . 197 

iii. 3 • 

. . . 294 

iii. 3 , 15 

... 327 

iii. 9, 10 

• . 303,409 

iii. 10 . 

• • • 145 

iii. 1 2 . 

• . . 317 

iii. 16 . 

... 372 

iii. 25 . 

. . . 288 

iv. s • 

. . . 260 

1 Thessalonians 

i. 9 • • 

. . . 114 

i- 7-9 • 

. . . 146 

iii. 12 . 

• • • 317 

iv. 13-17 

. . 59, 181, 

iv. 14 . 

433 , 436 

. . . 424 

iv. 14, 15 

. . . 426 

iv. 15-17 

. . . 217 

iv. 16 . 

. . . 197 

iv. 16-17 

. . . 43 i 

v. 10 . 

... 424 

v. 12 . 

. . . 355 

v. 23 . 

• • • 133 


2 Thessalonians 


i. 6-10 

. 217,436, 435 

i. 7 • 

. . . . 189 

i. 7-9 

. . . . 146 

i. 8, 9 

. . . . 183 

i.- 10-: 

12 . . . 118 

OJ 

1 

00 

.... 67 

ii. 6 

350 

ii. 13 

. . .116,330 

ii. 13, 

14 • • • 4i3 

ii. 16 

. . . . 318 

iii. 3 

. ... 199 

iii. 6 

.... 346 

iii.. 6, 

14 • • • 348 


463 


PAGE 

i Timothy 


i- 5 , 19 

. . . 314 

i. 12 

••• 373 

i. 13 • 

. . . 285 

i. 15 • 

. . . 246 

i. 17 . 

. . 113, 114 

i. 19, 20 

. . 249, 250 

i. 20 . 

... 413 

ii. 4 • 

. . . 109 

ii. 4-6 . 

• • • 253 

ii. 5 . : 

226, 248, 254, 


256 

ii. 6 

163, 260, 274 

ii. 7 . . 

. • • 355 

ii. 12 . 

. . 346, 349 

iii. 1-7 . 

... 354 

iii. 2 . 

• • 355 , 356 

iii. 6 . 

. . . 198 

iii. 7 . 

... 193 

iii. 8-12 

• • 353 , 356 

iii. 9 . 

• -314,356 

iii. 11 . 

• • 355 , 359 

iii. 11-14 

• • 354 , 356 

iii. 15 .346, 347 (note) 

111. 16 . 

190, 219, 314, 


318 

iv. 1 . 

187, 193, 198, 


297 , 397 

iv. 10 . 

• • • 163 

iv. 11-14 

• • 354 , 356 

iv. 14 . 

••• 355 

v. 1, 17 

... 354 

v. 3 , 9 • 

... 359 

v. 8 . 

64, 164, 193, 


198, 350 

v. 19 . 

• • • 350 

V. 14 . 

... 199 

v. 1 7, 18, 19 . 346, 


353 , 355 , 356 

v. 21 . 

. . 191, 192 

V. 22 . 

... 358 

vi. 2 . 

... 348 

vi. 15, 16 

. . . 113 

vi. 19 . 

. . . 216 

vi. 20 . 

... 373 

vi. 22 . 

... 358 


2 Timothy 

i- 3 3 i 4 

i. 6 65 

i. 9 . . . .116, 284 


464 


PAGE 

i. 1 1 . 


• 355 

ii. 2 


• 354 

ii. 8 . 


. 227 

ii. 15 • 


. 58 

ii. 16 . 


• 77 

ii. 17, 18 


• 350 

ii. 26 . 


193, 198 

iii. 13 • 


. 164 

iii. 14-17 


67, 7 1 

iii. 1 6, 17 


. 82 

iv. 1, 8 


. 217 

iv. 3 . 


• 355 

iv. 5 . 


• 359 

iv. 11 . 


67 

iv. 14 . 


• 413 

iv. 18 . 

21 7, 

218, 227 

iv. 18, 22 

, . 

. 218 


Titus 


i. 

5 

346,355,356, 



39i 

i. 

5-9 

• • 350, 354 

i. 

7 

• .355,356 

i. 9 . 

... 356 

11. 

13 

. .219,220 

ii. 

14 

260, 261, 318 

ii. 


... 346 

iii. 

5 

. 301, 314 £ -> 



361, 370 

iii. 

7 

• .318, 319 

iii. 

10 

349, 350, 394 

iii. 

10, 

11 . . 348 


Philemon 

12 387 


Hebrews 


1. 

1 

. 

. 

75 , 

222 

i. 

2, 

3, 10 . 

. 

217 

i. 

2, 

5, 8 . 

. 

217 

i. 

3 

. 

123 

127, 

217 

i. 

3 , 

4 • 

. 

• 

293 

i. 

5 

. 

. 

. 

209 

i. 

8, 

10 


. 

218 

i. 

12 

. 



113 

i. 

14 

. 

127, 

187, 

190, 




192 

i 95 , 

197 

ii. 

2 

. 

. 

160, 

195 

ii. 

2, 

6, 

8 . 


82 

ii. 

4 

. 

. 

65 , 

126 


TEXTUAL INDEX 


PAGE 

ii. 5 • • 

. . 190 

ii. 9 . . 

. 163, 278 

ii. 10 . . 

. I l8, 141 

ii. 12 . 

• 325, 347 

ii. 14 . 199, 227, 228 

ii. 14-16 . 

. . 246 

ii. 17 . 174, 227, 228, 

231, 252, 258, 274 

ii. 18 . . 

• • 237 

iii. 1 

. . 207 

iii. 3 , 6 . 

. . 217 

iii. 6 . . 

. 293, 348 

iv. 1-3, 11 

. . 411 

iv. 12 . . 

• • 133 

iv. 13 . . 

. 107, 113 

iv. 14 . . 

. . 217 

iv. 15 . . 

. 227, 237 

v. 2 . . 

. . 227 

v. 5 • • • 


v. 7-10 . . 

. . 228 

v. 8 . . . 


V. 12 . 

• • 355 

v. 12-14 . 

• • 375 

vi. 4-6 

. . 411 

vi. 6 . . 

. . 217 

vi. 8 . . 

. . 181 

vii. 3 . . 

. . 217 

vii. 25 . . 

. 264, 294 

vii. 25, 26, 

27 . 262 

vii. 27 . 

• • 385 

viii. 1 . . 

. . 294 

viii. 3 . . 

. . 252 

ix. 11-15 . 

. . 274 

ix. 12 . . 

. . 260 

ix. 13, 14 . 

• • 370 

ix. 14 . . 

• • 3 i 4 

ix. 14, 15, 

28 . 254, 


257 

ix. 15 . . 

. 260, 275 

ix. 16, 22, 

23, 

26 

. . 252 

ix. 22 . 

• • 321 

ix. 24, 25, 

28 . 226, 

228, 262, 294 

ix. 26, 28 

. • 385 

x. 1 . . 

. 82, 259 

x. 10 . 

• • 385 

x. 15 . . 

. . 294 

X. 20 . 

• • 387 

X. 22 . 

• 3i4, 361 

x. 25 . . 

. . 401 

x. 26-32 . 

. . 411 

x. 27 . . 

. . 181 


x. 29 . 

PAGE 

. . 449 

x. 30 . . 

. . 103 

xi. 3 • • 

. . 121 

xi. 6 . 

• • 325 

xi. 13 . . 

. . 82 

xi. 30 . . 

. . 105 

xi. 35 • • 

. . 260 

xii. 6 . . 

• • 325 

xii. 9 . 132, 

140 f., 142 

xii. 15 . . 

- • 355 

xii. 22, 23 

. . 197 

xii. 23 . 

. 181, 348 

(note), 420 

xii. 29 

. . 181 

xiii. 2 . 

. . 192 

xiii. 7, 17 

346 , 353 , 

xiii. 13 

354 , 355 
• • 373 

xiii. 18 

. • 3 i 4 

xiii. 20 

• • 355 


James 


i. 1 . 




1. 5 f- 



• 337 

1. 8, 9 



. 210 

i. 17 


104, 

113, ii 4 

i. 18 



284, 375 

ii. 1 



217, 288 

ii- 5 



. 284 

11. 9 



• 373 

ii. 21, 

24, 25 

. 318 

ii. 26 



. 132 

111. 1 



• 355 

m. 2 



. 408 

111. 14 



• 350 

iv. 2, 

3 


- 337 

v. 14 

. 


• 355 

v. 16 

f. 


• 337 


1 Peter 


i. 

i -3 - 

. . . 285 

i. 

2 

294, 296, 330 

i. 

3 • 

216, 217, 219 

i. 

3-5 • 

• -253,413 

i. 

3, 12 

... 309 

i. 

3, 23 

- - 301,375 

i. 

5 - 

. .320,413 

i. 

7 • • 

. . . 181 

i. 

10, 11 

• • 297, 445 

i. 

10-12, 

16, 24, 


25 • 

... 70 


PAGE 


i. 

10-12, 23 . . 

82 

i. 

1 1 

• 294, 

445 

i. 

12 

65, 190, 

246 

i. 

14-16 

. 

145 

i. 

17 • 

. 

288 

i. 

18 . 

. . 

261 

i. 

19 . 

. 

260 

i. 

23 • 

• 3io, 

375 

ii. 

4 • 

. 

107 

ii. 

6-8 . 

. 

70 

ii. 

9 • 

65, 303, 

348 

ii. 

1 1 . 

. 

132 

ii. 

12 . 

. . 

375 

ii. 

13 • 


303 

ii. 

24 . 228, 254, 

258, 




321 

ii. 

25 • 

. 

355 

iii 

4 • 

. . . 

135 

iii 

6, 10- 

12, 14, 


20 

. 

70 

iii 

15, 22 . . 

217 

iii 

18 . 

• • 132, 

163 

iii 

19 . 

. . . 

444 

iii 

21 . 314, 3 i 5 , 

370 , 



37 L 

374 

iii 

22 . 

• • 197 

293 

iv. 

6 . 

. 

444 

iv. 

1 1 . 

. . 80 

1 18 

iv. 

12 . 

• 

181 

iv. 

13 • 

• 

220 

iv. 

M 

VJ 

►H 

00 

• 

183 

iv. 

18 . 

. 

70 

iv. 

19 . 

• • 132 

145 

v. 

1, 2 

. 

355 

v. 

1-4 . 

• 

354 

V. 

3 • 

. 

348 

V. 

8 . 

193 , 198 

199 

v. 

13 • 

• 

67 

v. 

14 . 

. . . 

346 


2 Peter 


i. 

1, 8, 11, 

14 . 217 

i 

4 • • 

. .301 f. 

i. 

13 • • 

. . 418 

i. 

14 . . 

. . 418 

i. 

1 7 • • 

. . 216 

i. 

19-21 . 

. 70, 82 

i. 

21 . . 

. . 300 

ii. 

1 

. 260, 278 

ii. 

1, 20 . 

. . 217 

ii. 

4 • • 

• 193 , 194 

ii. 

5 • • 

. • 373 


TEXTUAL INDEX 




PAGE 

ii. 9 • 

181, 

444 , 445 

ii. 11 . 

189, 

191, 197 

ii. 16 . 


70 

ii. 20, 21 


. 164 

ii. 20, 22 


. 411 

ii. 22 . 


• 361 

iii. 2 . 


70 

iii. 2, 13 


82 

iii. 6 . 


. 181 

iii. 7 . 


. 411 

iii. 8 . 


. 114 

iii. 8, 9 


• 435 

iii. 9 . 


. 118 

iii. 15, 16 . 

. 65 

iii. 18 . 

217, 

3 i 7 , 327 


i John 


1. 





222 

i. 

1, 2 

. 



221 

i. 





224 

i. 

3 • 




221 

i. 

8, 

10 



408 

i. 

9 • 




318 

ii. 

1 

• 


. 294, 

408 

ii. 

2 

• 163 

258, 

262, 




264, 274, 

278 

ii. 

2, 

12 



320 

ii. 

9 , 

10 



304 

ii. 

13 , 

14 



199 

ii. 

19 , 

note 


414 

ii. 

20 

. 



83 

ii. 

20, 

27 



329 

ii. 

23 

. 



221 

ii. 

29 

• 



301 

iii 

4 

. 



160 

iii 

8 

• 


• 193 , 

246 

iii 

9 

. 


• 301, 

408 

iii 

12 

. 


. 

199 

iii 

23 

. 


. . 

221 

iv 

2 

. 


. 227, 

234 

iv. 

6 

• 


. 

199 

iv 

7 

• 


. 164, 

301 

iv. 

8, 

18 


. 

109 

iv. 

9 

. 


. 

270 

iv. 

9 , 

10 


. 

275 

iv. 

9 , 

10, 

16 

• 

118 

iv. 

9 , 

10, 

19 

. 

318 

iv. 

9 , 

1 1 

. 

. 

253 

iv. 

10 

. 

. 

. 258, 

274 

iv. 

14 , 

i 5 

. 

. . 

221 

iv. 

19 

. 

. 

• 145 , 

293 

V. 

1, 

4 , 

18 

. . 

301 


465 


PAGE 


V. 

5 , 

10, 

11, 12, 


13, 

20 

. . . 221 

V. 

10, 

12 

. . . 322 

V. 

11, 

12 

. . . 224 

V. 

14 

f. 

••• 337 

V. 

16 

. 

. . 262, 408 

V. 

18, 

19 

. .199,408 

V. 

20 

. 114, 218, 221, 


224 f. 


2 John 

1 355 

7 227 


3 John 

1 355 


Jude 


1, 4 , 17 , 21, 

25 • 217 

6 ... 

• 191, 193 

6-8 . . . 

. . 188 

9 . . . 

. 190, 197 

14 . . . 

. . 191 

16 . . . 

. . 288 


Revelation 


i. 4 , 5 


. . 296 

i. 6 . 


. . 348 

i. 10 . 


. . 401 

i. 17 . 


. . 216 

ii. 7 • 


• • 297 

ii. 8 . 


. . 216 

ii. 10, 25 


. . 411 

ii. 18 . 


. . 216 

ii. 23 . 


. 58,440 

iii. 6 . 


• . 297 

iv. 4 . 


• • 434 

iv. 11-14 


. • 333 

v. 2 


. . 190 

v. 6 


. . 296 

v. 9 


. 252, 260 

V. II, 12 


. . 191 

v. 1 1 . 


• 191, 197 

v. 12-14 


. . 216 

vi. 10 . 


. . 114 

vi. 15-17 


. . 146 

vii. 1, 2 


. . 196 

vii. nf. 


. . 191 


466 


TEXTUAL INDEX 




PAGE 




PAGE 


PAGE 

viii. 2, 6 


. . 197 

xiv. 8 . . 



I96 

xx. 9 . 

. . 181 

ix. 11 . 


. . I98 

xiv. 13 



297 

xx. 10-14 . 

. . 181 

x. 1 


. . 190 

xvi. 5 . . 



I96 

xx. 11-15 

. 437 , 439 

x. 6 . 


. 114, 1 2 1 

xviii. 21 . 



190 

XX. 12 

. . 440 

xii. 3, 4 

f. 

. . 199 

xix. 7-9 . 



385 

xx. 13 

• • 434 

xii. 7 . 


. 197 , 199 

xix. 10 



197 

xx. 13, 14 

. . 447 

xii. 7, 9 


. . 199 

xix. 11-16 



2l6 

xxi. 8 . 

. . 181 

xii. 9 . 


. 193 , 198 

xix. 14 . 



197 

xxi. 14 

. . 65 

xii. 10 . 


• 193 , 199 

xix. 17 



I96 

xxi. 22, 23 

. . 216 

xiii. 2, 4 


. . 199 

xx. 1-3. . 


190, 

I98 

xxii. 1 

• • 237 

xiii. 8 . 


. • 252 

XX. 2 . 



199 

xxii. 1, 3, 5 

. . 216 

xiv. 3 . 


26l 

XX. 2, 3, 10 



194 

xxii. 5 . 

• • 439 

xiv. 4 . 


. . 26l 

xx. 8 . . 



200 

xxii. 8, 9 . 

• • 197 

xiv. 3, 4 


. . 260 

xx. 7, 10 



193 

xxii. 12 f. 

. . 440 

xiv. 6, 7 


. I l8 

xx. 4-6 . 59,432, 

434 

xxii. 15 . 

. 183, 274 


TOPICAL INDEX 


Accountability for sin, 165, 170. 

Adoption of believers as children 
of God, 318. 

Agnostics, deny knowledge of 
God, 6. 

Alexander (A.), 154. 

Angel of Jehovah, identified with 
Christ, 206. 

Angels, good and bad, 122, 186- 
200; literature, 186. 

Annihilation of the wicked un- 
scriptural, 179. 

Anselm, 40. 

Apollinaris’ theory of Christ’s 
person, 231. 

Arminian hypothesis of account- 
ability for sin, 172. 

Arnold (A. N.), 288. 

Atonement by self-sacrifice of 
God in Christ, 248-264 ; liter- 
ature, 279; objections to 
author’s view considered, 276 ; 
summary of truths concerning, 
270-276 ; theories of, 264-270. 

Attributes of God, literature, 
109. 

Augustine, 6, 298, 427. 

Augustinian hypothesis of ac- 
countability for sin, 173. 


Baptism and the Christian life, 
312; external rite, 360; John’s 
and Christian, 379 ; literature, 
364, 366 ; of infants, 375 ; lit- 
erature, 375, 379 ; significance 
of, 369; subjects of, 372. 

Baptismal regeneration, 314. 

Bell (C.), in Bridgewater Trea- 
tise, 34- 


Bible, discrepancies in, literature, 
102; objections to supreme 
authority answered, 86 ; a 
trustworthy revelation of God, 
45 - 75 - 

Bibliolatry, 86. 

Bipartite nature of men, 13 1. 

Bliss (G. R.), 288, 434. 

Boise (J. R.), 256. 

Bowne (B. P.), 20, 176. 

Bruce (A. B.), 278. 

Bunyan (J.), 324. 


Calvinistic hypothesis of ac- 
countability for sin, 174. 

Canon of New Testament, litera- 
ture, 47 ; Old Testament, lit- 
erature, 69, 70. 

Cautions to theological students, 

6 . 

Cave (A.), 84. 

Chace (G. I.), 126, 184. 

Channing (W. E ), 265. 

Chase (I.), 371. 

Christian Churches, 345-354. 

Christian life, beginning and 
growth, 282-339; baptism, 312; 
election to, 283 ; gospel and 
the, 309; growth of, 317; Holy 
Spirit and, 294 ; human action 
in, 305 ; Jesus Christ and, 290. 

Christian ministers, 354-358 ; 
literature, 354. 

Christianity as an historical re- 
ligion, 46 ; in the Roman em- 
pire, literature, 46. 

Chronology of early Genesis, 95. 

Church, courtesies of one to an- 
other, 351; defined, 349; dis- 


467 


4 68 


TOPICAL INDEX 


cipline, 350; elections, 351; 
membership, 347 ; organiza- 
tion for mission work, 352 ; 
requisites for admission to, 
349- 

Churches, literature, 345. 

Clarke (S.), 40. 

Co-creation of human souls, 140. 

Communicants at the Lord’s Sup- 
per, 387. 

Consubstantiation, 386. 

Cooke (J. P.), 26. 

Contradictory statements in Bible 
examined, 100. 

Cousin (V.), 40. 

Creation through the Word, 120. 

Cyril’s theory of Christ’s person, 
232. 


Darwin (C.), 127. 

Dawson (J. W.), 1 7, 35- 

Deacons, 353. 

Death, 180, 417; of unbelievers, 
443- 

Definitions: angels, 122, 186; 

atonement, 248 ; baptism, 360 ; 
bipartite nature of men, 13 1 ; 
Calvinism, 287 ; Christian life, 
282 ; Christian religion, 3 ; 
Christian theology, 3 ; Church, 
347 ; election, 287 ; faith, 308 ; 
grace, 109; holiness and love, 
146 ; inerrancy, 55 ; inspira- 
tion, 63, 80; justice, 109 ; justi- 
fication, 319; Lord’s Supper, 
383; love, 308; mercy, 109; 
miracles, 59 ; moral evil, 250 ; 
moral good, 249 ; moral quality 
of action, 15 1 ; moral perfec- 
tion, 107; natural evil, 251; 
natural good, 249 ; patience of 
God, 109; personality of Jesus 
Christ, 238; prayer, 332; pro- 
pitiation, 248 ; providence, 
124; punishment, 176; re- 
demption, 249; religion, 1, 38; 
repentance, 307 ; sanctifica- 
tion, 328; sin, 162; soul and 
spirit, 134; supernatural in 
revelation, 44 ; theism, 25 ; 
trustworthiness of historical 
records, 46 ; wisdom of God, 
109; worship, 332. 


Deity of the Holy Spirit, 294. 

Deluge, 96. 

Demons, 193, 198. 

Demoniacal possession, litera- 
ture, 198. 

De Pressense (E.), 223. 

Design in Nature, 26. 

De Wette (W. M. L.), 243. 

Dewey, 136. 

Diman (J. L.), 36. 

Divine and human in Jesus 
Christ, 231. 

Divinity of Jesus Christ, litera- 
ture, 205. 

Dorner (A.), 84, 120. 

Dorner’s theory of Christ’s per- 
son, 238. 

Duration of human life, 142. 


Edwardean hypothesis of ac- 
countability for sin, 172. 

Edwards (J.), 15 5- 

Edwards (J., Jr.), 177- 

Effects of incarnation on divine 
nature of Jesus Christ, 231 ; 
on human nature of Jesus 
Christ, 241. 

Election, 283. 

Eliot (G.), 179. 

Emerson (R. W.), 154. 

Ends of God in creation and 
providence, 149. 

Eschatology, 416-450; literature, 
440- 

Eternal life, 179. 

Ethics of the Old Testament, 
literature, 103. 

Evidence, three kinds of, 5 ; 
probable, importance of, 5 ; 

Evolution, 28. 


Faculties of the soul in moral 
action, 149. 

Fairbairn (A. M.), 184. 

Faith, 308, 322. 

Faith the condition of justifica- 
tion, 321. 

Fallen angels, 193. 

Falling from grace examined, 
410. 

Family, the, 343. 

Fiske (J.), 24, 143, 418. 


TOPICAL INDEX 469 


Forgiveness of sins, 318. 

Four Gospels in first century, 
literature, 50; unity of, litera- 
ture, 53. 

Fourth Gospel, literature, 51. 
Freewill, 1 51-157. 

Future punishment, 176-185. 


Genealogies of Jesus, 99 ; litera- 
ture, 99. 

Genetic hypothesis of creation, 
28-41. 

Gess’ theory of Christ’s person, 
^ 33 - 

God, and moral evil, 124; eternal, 
1 14; immutable, 113; inde- 
pendent, 1 13; living and per- 
fect, 39, 107; omnipresent, 

1 15; omniscient, 107; personal 
and tripersonal, no; revealed 
in nature, 17-41 ; revealed in 
Scripture, 42-106; self-suffi- 
cient, in. 

God upholds all things through 
the Word, 122. 

God’s end in creation, literature, 
1 17; eternal purpose, 116-120. 

Godet, 224. 

Goodwin (D. R.), 134 

Gospel, the, and the beginning 
of spiritual life, 310. 

Gospels trustworthy, 49-55. 

Governmental theory of atone- 
ment, 266. 

Grace, 109. 

Gray (A.), 31. 

Green (T. S.), 222. 

Growth in Christian life favored 
by worship, 331 ; study of 
God’s word, 338 ; doing God’s 
will, 339. 

Guardian angels, 196. 


Hackett (H. B.), 376. 

Hades, and unbelievers, 444. 
Hamilton (W.), 154. 

Harris (S.), 26, 123. 

Hatch (E.), 135. 

Heard (J. B.), 419. 

Heavenly body, the, 440. 
Hengstenberg (E. W.), 370. 


Higher Christian life, literature, 
410. 

Hill (T.), 26. 

Historical errors in Bible con- 
sidered, 98. 

Holy Spirit, 294-304; literature, 
283 ; and Christian growth, 
328 ; deity of, 294 ; identical 
with spirit of God, 300 ; orig- 
inator of Christian life, 301, 
31 1 ; personality of, 295; ob- 
jections to personality, 297. 

Hope, and beginning of Christian 
life, 309. 

Humanity of Jesus . Christ, 226 ; 
literature, 226. 


Immaculate conception of Mary, 
242. 

Immortality, 142, 18 1. , 

Imputation of Adam’s sin, 175. 

Incarnation of the Divine Word, 
238 ; reasons for, 245. 

Inerrancy of apostles, 66. 

Infinite known but in part, 4, 5. 

Inspiration, defined, 63, 85 ; and 
revelation, 80 ; gracious, 83 ; 
literature, 74, 75, 76, 78, 85; 
mode of, 76 ; plenary verbal, 
76 ; plenary dynamical, 78, 85 ; 
promised by Jesus Christ, 63 ; 
religious dynamical, 80. 

Intercessory prayer, 262. 

Irving (E.), 242. 

Irving’s theory of incarnation, 
242. 


Jehovah of hosts, 190. 

Jesus’ claim to knowledge, 56. 

Jesus’ claim to divine preroga- 
tives, 212. 

Jesus’ claims and doctrines, lit- 
erature, 58. 

Jesus’ predictions fulfilled, 58. 

Jesus Christ an infallible teach- 
er, 55 ; and beginning of Chris- 
tian life, 290 ; and growth in 
Christian life, 326 ; divine, 
204-226 ; definition of his per- 
son, 238 ; human, 226-228 ; 
mediatorial king, 293 ; person 
and work, 203-279 ; prepara- 


47 ° 


TOPICAL INDEX 


tion for his coming, 203 ; re- 
vealer of holiness and love, 
290 ; source of spiritual life, 
294 ; theories of his person, 
231-238; unipersonal, 228-231. 

Josephus, 69. 

Judgment for believers, 438 ; for 
unbelievers, 448. 

Justification by the Father, 317; 
on account of the work of 
Christ, 320 ; on condition of 
faith, 321 ; and sanctification, 

323. 


Lange (F. A.), 18. 

Last day for the believer, 438- 
442 ; for the unbeliever, 448. 
Leathes, 223. 

Longevity of patriarchs, litera- 
ture, 96. 

Leo’s theory of Christ’s person, 

233. 

Lord’s day, 399 ; observance of, 
402. 

Lord’s Supper, 383 ; external 
rite, 383 ; import, 384 ; proper 
communicants, 387. 

Lotze (H.), 21, 22, 123, 142, 156. 
Love of God, 112, 253. 

Love of man to God, 308. 
Luthardt (C. E.), 224. 


Macdonald (G.), 120. 

Maclaren (A.), 306. 

Mankind, nature, character and 
condition, 131-159; literature, 

131- 

Mansel (H. L.), 37. 

Mason (A. J.), 258. 

Materialistic hypothesis as to 
nature, 19. 

Matheson (G.), 34. 

Mediatorial work of Jesus Christ, 
248. 

Men bipartite by nature, 131-136 ; 
exposed to punishment for sin, 
176-185; guilty and con- 
demned, 171-176; moral, 36, 
149; racial, 136-139; rational, 
34 ; religious, 36 ; reproduc- 
tive, 1 39- 1 43 ; social, 143 ; who 
may be saved, 305. 


Mercy of God, 109. 

Messianic predictions of the per- 
son of Christ, 208-212. 

Messner (H.), 369 f. 

Meyer (H. A. W.), 218, 221. 

Milton (J.), 179. 

Mind, its normal action trust- 
worthy, 4 ; weighs evidence, 5 ; 

Miracles, literature, 60, 61 ; ob- 
jections to, 60 ; wrought by 
Jesus Christ, 59. 

Monism, objections to, 23. 

Monistic hypothesis as to nature, 
20. 

Moral action voluntary, 150. 

Moral evil, 250. 

Moral good, 249. 

Moral influence of Christ’s 
death, 261, 292. 

Moral influence theory of atone- 
ment, 264. 

Moral law defined, 144 ; source, 
144 ; content, 145. 

Moral quality where discovered, 
150. 

Moral Responsibility, 43, 158. 

Moral teaching of Bible, 103. 

Morris (J.), 25. 

Mosaic sacrifice, 259. 

Mueller (J.), 112, 140. 


Nature, all parts interdepend- 
ent, 17, 18; appearance of ani- 
mal life, 31, 32; mankind as 
rational, moral and religious 
beings, 33-40 ; of vegetable life, 
29, 30 ; arguments for monis- 
tic hypothesis of, 21-23; for 
theistic hypothesis of, 25 ; 
from order and design, 25-27 ; 
definition, 17; formation of 
atoms, 29 ; genetic history in 
theistic argument, 29-40 ; its 
revelation of God imperfect, 
41 ; materialistic hypothesis, 
18, 19; monistic hypothesis, 

20; objections to argument 
from design, 27, 28; objections 
to materialistic hypothesis, 19; 
objections to monistic hypoth- 
esis, 23, 24; objections to 

theistic view, 32, 33. 

Natural evil, 250. 


TOPICAL INDEX 


47 1 


Natural evil both retributive and 
beneficent, 184. 

Natural good, 249. 

Neighborhood life, 344. , 

Nestorius’ theory of Christ’s per- 
son, 232. 

New birth, 301, 31 1. 

New Testament use of. Old Tes- 
tament, literature, 70, 71 ; 

quotations from Old Testa- 
ment, literature, 93. 

Northrup (G. W.), 310. 


Old Testament canon, 70 ; lit- 
erature on, 69 ; quoted in New 
Testament, 70 ; scriptures as 
historical records, 72 ; scrip- 
tures, from God, 68-75. 

Omnipotence of God, no. 

Omniscience of God, 107. 

Ordinances enjoined by the New 
Testament, 359. 

Ordination for Christian service, 
358. 

Orelli (C.), 259. 

Organic union theory of atone- 
ment, 269. 

Origin of sin, literature, 163. 

Original sin, 171-175. 


Pain, 177, 250. 

Paradise, or the middle state, 
420. 

Pardon for sin, 317 f. 

Park (E. A.), 266. 

Pastors of churches, 354. 

Patience of God, 109. 

Pelagian hypothesis of account- 
ability for sin, 171. 

Pepper (G. D. B.), 300. 

Perfection of Christian service 
and character, 407. 

Personality of God, no; of 
Jesus Christ, 238; cf Holy 
Spirit, 295. 

Phelps (A.), 438. 

Philosophical speculation dan- 
gerous, 7. 

Placean hypothesis of account- 
ability for sin, 173. 

Plumptre (C. E.), 434. 


Prayer, 332 ; and election to sal- 
vation, 286 ; intercessory, 262 ; 
objections founded on igno- 
rance, 334 ; founded on order 
of nature, 335-338. 

Precreation of human souls, 139. 

Predictions, alleged to be false, 
102; made by Jesus Christ, 
58. 

Preservation of the saints, 413. 

Procreation of human souls, 141. 

Propitiation, 248, 258. 

Providence of God, 124-128, 288, 
325- 

Punishment for wrongdoing, 176, 
251 , 273- 

Purpose of God eternal, 116-120. 


Qualifications for theological 
study, 8. 

Quotations of Old Testament in 
New Testament, 93. 


Ransom by Christ, 260. 

Redemption by Christ, 248. 

Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, 
301. 

Religion, Christian, defined, 3, 5. 

Repentance, 307. 

Responsibility for sin in others, 
168. 

Responsibility, theories of, 171- 
176. 

Restoration of the wicked denied, 
182. 

Resurrection, 422-438 ; and prog- 
ress of the Christian life, 437 ; 
at death, denied, 429 ; just be- 
fore millennium denied, 432 ; 
literature, 423, 432 ; of believ- 
ers, 426 ; of believers at end 
of present age, 429, 437; of 
Jesus, 423 ; of unbelievers, 447. 

Retributive justice, 176. 

Revelation in nature insuffi- 
cient, 41 ; objections to writ- 
ten, 42; progressive, 89, 1 15- 

Righteousness of God, 108, 254, 

Rothe (R.), 442. 

Rousseau (J. J.), 335- 
Royce (J.), 19, 20. 


47 2 


TOPICAL INDEX 


Sacred scriptures adapted to 
their recipients, 85. 

Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, 
328 ; completed at death, 409 ; 
related to justification, 323. 

Satan, 193, 199. 

Schurman (J. G.), 4, 156. 

Science and religion, literature, 
87 . 

Science and the scriptures, 86, 
95 - 

Scriptures in the time of Christ, 
69. 

Self-sacrifice of Christ, 252-279 ; 
due to God’s love, 253 ; due to 
God’s righteousness, 254 ; an 
intercession, 262 ; author’s 
view, 272-276; objections to 
author’s view, 277 ; necessary, 
252 ; propitiatory, 258 ; a ran- 
som, 260 ; for all men, 278. 

Seneca, 163. 

Sin, defined variously, 160; de- 
grees of, 164; universal, 162; 
and evil, literature, 87 ; related 
to God’s eternal purpose, 119. 

Sinlessness of Jesus, 242. 

Smith (G.), 120. 

Soul and spirit, 134. 

Spirit of God, 300. 

Spiritual discernment, 309. 

Spiritual life a new birth, 301 ; 
a divine calling, 303 ; a new 
creation, 303 ; a resurrection, 
302. 

Spiritualism, 200. 

Strong (A. H.), 437- 

Stubbs (C. W.), 450. 

Study of God’s world, word and 
providence favorable to Chris- 
tian growth, 338. 

Substitutionary theory of atone- 
ment, 267. 

Suffering in the world, 118. 

Summum bonum, 147. 

Supernatural action, 44. 

Suum cuique, 146. 


Teleology, 26. 

Tennyson (A.), 335- 

Theism, literature, 25, 26. 

Theology, Christian, definition 
of, 3 ; dependent on nature and 
revelation, 4 ; furnishes data 
for apologetic, polemic and 
comparative, 4 ; postulates of, 
4 ; depends on experience, 9 ; 
qualification for study of, 8, 
9; benefits of study of, 9, 10; 
divisions of, 10, 1 1 ; based on 
the Trinity, 11 ; Christocentric, 
11, 12; governmental, 12; 

remedial, 12; of Bible alleged 
to be bad, 104. 

Theism, a priori arguments for, 
39 f- 

Theistic hypothesis of creation 
reasonable, 25. 

Thomasius’ theory of Christ’s 
persons, 237. 

Thompson (W.), 19. 

Thoreau (H. D.), 177. 

Total depravity, 164. 

Transubstantiation, 385. 

Trinity, the, 110-113, 298; litera- 
ture, 1 13. 

Tripartite nature of man denied, 
133 . 

Tyndall (J.), 30. 


Unity of mankind, 136; litera- 
ture, 136. 

Union of believers with Christ, 

323, 327. 


Van Oostersee (J. J.), 330. 


Wallace (A. R.), 336, 
Winchell (A.), 137. 
Wisdom of God, 109. 
Worship, 33 1* 

Worship, family, 343. 


» 















































































' 
















‘ 



























- 


































































































































